Throughout modern warfare, cognitive games have become the focus of offense and defense. Whether one is proficient in planning operations in the cognitive domain will greatly affect the direction and outcome of the war. A deep understanding of the connotation, extension and category style of cognitive domain operations, and an accurate grasp of its winning mechanism and development trend are the keys to understanding the context of the battlefield and winning modern wars.
Cognitive domain operations are the new focus of war games
Different from traditional operations, cognitive domain operations are no longer limited to land, sea, air, space, electricity, network and other fields. It breaks through the traditional physical domain and information domain. It has unique advantages, presents new characteristics, and expands the modern Battlefield new frontier.
Cognitive domain operations expand the war domain space. First of all, the battlefield space in the cognitive domain is broad, mainly reflected in people’s spirit, psychology, thinking, beliefs and other cognitive activities. Its combat targets are mainly hostile heads of state and political figures, military personnel, social elites and the general public. Secondly, cognitive domain operations take a wide range of forms, including but not limited to political and diplomatic pressure, economic blockade and sanctions, cultural penetration and erosion, etc. Thirdly, the goals of cognitive domain operations are wide-ranging, mainly to shake the enemy’s belief, disintegrate the enemy’s will, influence and change the opponent’s decision-making, thereby causing social chaos, decision-making errors, demoralization of the enemy’s military, and even subverting its national power.
Cognitive domain operations blur the boundaries of the war domain. The main body of cognitive domain operations is people. People are the most active factor in war, especially the cognition of high-level decision-makers, which embodies the overall will of the war, directly affects the overall situation of the war, and determines the outcome of the war. The cognition of state leaders and military generals is the key target of cognitive domain operations. Popular will, social foundation, and international public opinion are usually the basis for cognitive domain operations and are the key forces that promote the process and direction of war. Cognitive domain operations mix conventional and unconventional operations, blurring the boundaries of the war field. It aims to cognitively induce and attack information recipients, bypassing the traditional battlefield and reaching the weakest link – people. Tactical actions can achieve strategic goals, from Fundamentally change the battlefield environment and change the outcome of the war.
Cognitive domain operations reach the ultimate strategic goal. There is a saying in the ancient Chinese art of war: “The way to use troops is to attack the heart first, and to attack the city below; to fight the heart first, and to fight soldiers lower.” Operations in the cognitive domain aim to occupy cognitive dominance and influence the enemy’s decision-making and behavior. Achieve maximum combat effectiveness at minimum cost. As Clausewitz mentioned in “On War”, “War is an act of violence that forces the enemy to obey our will.” Since cognitive domain operations are not hard kills against living forces, but soft kills against invisible targets, they can not only “force the enemy to obey our will”, but also objectively enable the enemy to destroy itself from within, making it unable to resist, disintegrate, and ultimately Achieve the strategic goal of “complete victory” without fighting.
Cognitive domain operations are a new product of military reform
At present, major changes in the world that have not been seen in a century are accelerating. The international situation is becoming increasingly complex, and local wars and regional conflicts continue. As a new combat method, cognitive domain operations are becoming more and more important driven by the new wave of military reforms.
The laws of war are the basic rules for combat in the cognitive domain. Cognitive domain operations still follow the basic laws of war. First, justice must prevail. Just wars promote historical development and ultimately defeat unjust wars, and cognitive domain operations that occupy the moral commanding heights have the conditions to win first. The second is the victory of the strong and the defeat of the weak. The advancement of science and technology has given rise to advanced military theories and promoted the development of high-tech equipment. Seizing control and control can achieve dimensionality reduction strikes and disintegrate enemy forces. Third, subjective guidance is consistent with objective reality. Cognitive domain operations must be based on a certain objective material basis. The battlefield environment must be comprehensively considered, the situations of both parties must be weighed, and favorable decisions must be made. Fourth, key operations affect the overall situation. In network-centered system operations, the cognitive domain often becomes the most critical link, and its success or failure can determine the battle situation.
Theoretical innovation is the basic support for cognitive domain operations. In recent years, the US military has successively proposed new combat theories such as “hybrid warfare”, “mosaic warfare” and “gray zone conflict”. It regards cognitive domain operations as the main combat method and has formed a relatively mature theory. The Russian army has also developed its own set of hybrid warfare methods in long-term military practice, especially in the Syrian battlefield, where it skillfully used “Gerasimov” tactics to deal with “hybrid warfare.” Japan has also vigorously developed its military power in recent years. In its new version of the “Defense White Paper”, it first mentioned the concept of “domain transversal” operations, aiming to break through traditional fields and regard new fields such as the cognitive domain as the key direction of its military power development, making it more proactive. and extraversion.
Military practice is an important basis for cognitive domain operations. Judging from the recent local wars, cognitive domain warfare has become the main combat method of modern warfare and has achieved high combat effectiveness. The confrontation between cognitive warfare and counter-cognitive warfare is quite fierce. In 2010, the United States and other Western countries launched a cognitive war, hyped up the Tunisian democratic movement and created the “Arab Spring”, which plunged the Middle East into chaos and allowed terrorist organizations to take advantage of the opportunity to wreak havoc. The United States attempted to consolidate its hegemony by overthrowing the Egyptian government, launching a war in Libya, and intervening in the Syrian war. In 2014, the Russian army took control of Crimea through a combination of strategies, multi-dimensional breakthroughs, and public opinion building. Its cognitive domain operations also have very distinctive characteristics.
Cognitive domain operations are a new direction in war planning
With the continuous development of high and new technologies and their widespread application in the military field, the shape of future wars will evolve at an accelerated pace, and the complexity and unknown nature of wars will increase dramatically. To this end, we should plan in advance, coordinate scientifically, strengthen the construction of combat capabilities in the cognitive domain, deeply integrate into the future battlefield, and effectively control the initiative in future wars.
Promote research on the winning mechanism of cognitive domain operations. As an important combat method in future wars, the status and role of cognitive domain operations will be more prominent, and the development prospects will be broader. Controlling cognitive power has become an important part of seizing war control. To win future wars, we must keep up with the trends in the development of war forms, vigorously study the winning mechanism of cognitive domain operations, use theoretical innovation to drive innovation in tactics, and seek advantages and opportunities.
Strengthen the construction of offensive and defensive capabilities in cognitive domain operations. From individuals to organizations to countries, the impact of cognitive domain operations spans all time and space and all elements, spans different combat fields, and affects the entire combat process. In future wars, commanders and combatants will face huge cognitive offensive and defensive challenges. Seizing control of cognitive power, and then seizing comprehensive battlefield control, will become the key point of control in future wars. We should adhere to demand-driven efforts, strengthen the construction of offensive and defensive forces in cognitive domain operations, build a cognitive domain combat system that integrates offense and defense, peacetime and war, and multi-dimensional integration, establish and improve drill and evaluation mechanisms, and continuously improve capabilities through long-term military practice.
Accelerate the research and development of high-tech cognitive domain operations. Currently, with the rapid development of high-tech technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing, the acquisition of open source information has become more convenient and efficient. Cognitive domain operations are increasingly characterized by fast start-up, low cost, and high efficiency. In addition, with the quiet development of emerging technologies such as neuroscience and brain science, it can be inferred that cognitive warfare weapons will become increasingly abundant and widely used in future wars. We should keep up with the development of the times, plan and design in advance, vigorously develop cutting-edge technologies oriented to seizing cognitive advantages, and promote the update of cognitive domain combat concepts and methods, so as to seize the initiative in future wars.
Chinese Military From “Cyber Warfare” to “Mosaic Warfare”
Theory is the precursor to action. Strengthening innovation in combat concepts and promoting innovation in combat guidance have always been important ways for militaries around the world to cultivate military advantages. In recent years, the U.S. military has successively proposed cutting-edge combat theories such as “cyber warfare” and “mosaic warfare” in order to realize that the “production relationship” of combat mode can be more adaptable to the development of “productivity” of combat capabilities. By comparing and analyzing these two combat theories, the world can get a glimpse of the changes in the US military’s combat capability building thinking, especially the understanding of the winning mechanism of “mosaic warfare”, so that it can be targeted and find effective checks and balances.
● From threat response to war design——
Actively shape and promote the improvement of combat capabilities
“Threat-based” or “capability-based” are two basic ways to build military combat capabilities. “Threat-based” embodies demand traction and focuses on solving practical problems in the near and medium term, which is the basic law that should be followed in the construction of military combat capabilities; “capability-based” embodies goal traction, aims at future strategic missions, and supports strategic concepts with new combat theories, which is the key to military operations. The only way to achieve innovation and transcendence in capabilities. The development from “cyber warfare” to “mosaic warfare” reflects the differences and evolution of the inherent laws of the above two approaches, and also reflects the changes in the US military’s ideas and concepts for promoting combat capability building in recent years.
The concept begins to change. Cyberspace was originally created to solve human communication needs. Later, it gradually evolved into a new combat domain independent of land, sea, air and space. From this, the “cyberspace” with the core of fighting for cyberspace dominance was derived. war”. In contrast, “mosaic warfare” is a new operational concept actively developed and designed by the US military in order to maintain its strategic advantage and directly target competitors. Its formation process reflects the integration of demand-driven and capability-driven, strategic, proactive, and Traction is more prominent.
New ideas for technology application. “Cyber warfare” emphasizes the development of new generation technologies to support the transformation and implementation of combat concepts. “Mosaic warfare” breaks out of this model and does not overemphasize the research and development of new generation equipment technology. It pays more attention to the rapid transformation of common military and civilian technologies and the incremental iteration of mature technologies. The basic idea is to “mosaic” various combat system units into single-function, flexibly assembled units based on existing equipment and through module upgrades and intelligent transformation in accordance with the application concepts of service platforms such as online ride-hailing and crowdfunding development. , easy-to-replace “building blocks” or “pixels” to build a dynamically coordinated, highly autonomous, and seamlessly integrated combat system, embodying new technology-driven ideas.
Path development new design. “Cyber warfare” is an accompanying concept of the cyberspace. Wherever the cyberspace develops, “cyber warfare” will follow. Generally speaking, we first consider the “objective” material conditions before making the “subjective” conceptual design. , has strong dependence on path development. “Mosaic warfare” first evolved from “subjective” to “objective”. By developing a force design model that can dynamically adjust the functional structure, it can adapt to different operational needs and changes in the battlefield environment.
It can be seen that compared with previous combat concepts such as “cyber warfare”, “mosaic warfare” has clearer goals, more mature technology, and more reliable paths, reflecting the change in thinking actively shaped by the US military.
● From network center to decision-making center——
Group intelligence to achieve optimal energy release of the system
Artificial intelligence technology is a key variable in the information age and a core increment in the development of the “mosaic warfare” system. “Cyber warfare” emphasizes “network center”, while “mosaic warfare” tightly focuses on the core of artificial intelligence technology, adjusts the key to victory from “network center” to “decision center”, and changes the combat system architecture from system level to Platform-level alliances are transformed into functional-level and element-level integration, seeking to use group intelligence technology to achieve the optimal release of system energy on the premise that the network is fully energy-gathered, giving new connotations to the winning mechanism of war in the intelligent era.
Use “fast” to control “slow” and gain the upper hand in cognition. In future wars, the battlefield situation will change rapidly, and the weight of the time element will continue to rise. “Fast” versus “slow” can create a nearly dimensionally reduced combat strike effect. “Mosaic Warfare” uses data information technology and artificial intelligence technology to improve the single-loop decision-making speed of one’s own “OODA” loop, expand the breadth of parallel decision-making, reduce the granularity of group-loop decision-making, speed up the progress of system operations, and overall create a model that is always one step ahead of others. The “first move” posture aims to firmly control the dominance of cognitive decision-making on the battlefield.
Use “low” to control “high” and accumulate cost advantages. Different from the traditional combat concept of pursuing high-end weapon platforms, “mosaic warfare” focuses on using artificial intelligence technology to tap the potential and increase efficiency of existing weapon platforms and combat resources. By loading and running intelligent algorithms and specific functional modules on many mid- to low-end weapon platforms, they can achieve combat performance comparable to that of high-end weapon platforms. This overall improves the cost-effectiveness of the input-output of the weapon platform, thereby accumulating cost advantages.
Use “dispersion” to control “gathering” and seek sustainable survival. “Mosaic warfare” emphasizes the use of decentralized ideas and asymmetric checks and balances, using an open system architecture to decentrally configure various functions such as reconnaissance, positioning, communication, and strike on various manned/unmanned platforms to achieve Distributed deployment of power. At the same time, intelligent algorithms are used to improve the self-organization, self-coordination, and independent attack capabilities of each platform, so as to achieve centralized firepower. When some combat platforms are eliminated, disrupted, or stripped away, the entire combat system can still operate normally, thus enhancing the battlefield survivability of the force cluster.
Use “dynamic” to control “quiet” and improve system flexibility. “Mosaic warfare” emphasizes further breaking through barriers in each combat domain. By turning fixed “kill chains” in different combat domains into dynamically reconfigurable “kill nets”, the “OODA” large ring is disassembled into small rings, and a single ring is differentiated into multiple rings. According to changes in the combat process and combat needs, rely on intelligent networking to realize on-the-go splitting, on-the-go deployment, and on-the-go combination of combat forces. In this way, on the one hand, it can enhance the flexibility and adaptability of the combat system; on the other hand, it can also offset the node aggregation effect of complex networks, making it difficult for opponents to find key nodes to defeat one’s own system.
“Mosaic warfare” provides a reference prototype for intelligent warfare. But at the same time, as an idealized force design and application framework, “mosaic warfare” also needs supporting support such as technology, doctrine, and policies that are closely related to it. There is still a long way to go before it can be fully realized. Compared with traditional warfare, The situation of system coexistence will exist for a long time.
● From element integration to system reorganization——
Dynamic structure to enhance the flexibility of the combat system
Structure and relationships often determine functions and properties. “Cyber warfare” and “mosaic warfare” are built on the same material foundation in the information age and follow the same evolutionary paradigm, but the principles and effects of system construction are different. The architecture formed by “cyber warfare” can be statically deconstructed, while “mosaic warfare” dynamically combines functional units according to certain construction rules to form an elastic architecture with self-organizing and adaptive characteristics, similar to a “dynamic black box”. Conventional The means are difficult to track and predict. This flexible structure often “emerges” new capabilities to empower and increase the efficiency of the combat system.
The integrated development of network and cloud makes combat space and time more dynamic and malleable. The Internet and cloud are the basic environment for the operation of the information combat system. They have reshaped the process elements of intelligence, command, attack, and support in traditional operations, and at the same time derived new combat time and space. “Cyber warfare” mainly focuses on the cyberspace, and its combat time and space are relatively static. “Mosaic warfare” is not limited to a single combat space. Under the development trend of information infrastructure network moving with the cloud and integrating cloud and network, the tangible and intangible space can be further hinged, the boundaries of combat space and time are more flexible, and the allocation of combat resources is more flexible. The combat architecture is more dynamic.
Data flows across domains, making combat control more seamlessly coordinated. In the command and control link, “cyber warfare” focuses on the command and control of combat units by joint combat command institutions, and the cross-domain exchange and flow of data is mainly concentrated on theater battlefields. “Mosaic warfare” further lowers the level of joint operations to the tactical end. Through the independent cross-domain exchange and seamless flow of data at the tactical level, various data islands can be gathered into data clusters on demand, thereby generating significant “overflow” “” effect makes the dynamic, discrete, agile, and parallel characteristics of the combat command and control loop more obvious, and is more conducive to realizing agile connection and efficient coordinated actions of various combat units on demand.
The algorithm penetrates all dimensions, making the system run more autonomously and efficiently. Algorithms are the mapping of human consciousness in cyberspace, forming two basic forms: compiled codes transformed by intentions and neural networks transformed by knowledge. In “Cyber Warfare”, compiled code is used extensively and neural networks are only used locally. In the “mosaic war”, the algorithm has expanded to two key functions: shaping rules and providing engines, and the breadth and depth of its application are more prominent. The shaping rules mainly focus on compiled code, supplemented by neural networks, to construct the process framework and operating logic of the “mosaic warfare” system, laying a structural foundation for its uncertainty, adaptability and “emergent” capabilities; providing the engine mainly integrates intelligence The algorithm model is distributed to edge elements for operation, forming a knowledge diffusion effect, thereby comprehensively improving the intelligent autonomous combat capabilities of the “mosaic warfare” system.
The independent release of energy at the edge makes the combat style more flexible and diverse. The edge is an abstract model of various manned/unmanned combat functional units and is also the direct source of the “emergence” of system capabilities. In the “cyber warfare” system, edge elements are closely coupled with the superior and subordinate command and control processes and are in a state of precise control. In the “Mosaic Warfare” system, the perception, interaction, reasoning, and decision-making capabilities of edge elements are greatly improved. Its “OODA” loop does not need to be linked back to the higher-level command organization, which is conducive to supporting the formation of a decentralized combination of high-low and manned/unmanned. The optimized combat cluster form can give edge elements more self-organizing authority, which significantly enhances battlefield confrontation advantages.
It can be seen that if “cyber warfare” is called a sophisticated war machine, “mosaic warfare” can be regarded as a complex “ecology” that can stimulate the dynamic growth of combat capabilities. New technologies generated by network clouds, data, algorithms, and edge devices Changes promote the formation of a dynamic and complex “architecture”. This structure in turn regulates elements, platforms, and systems in reverse, constantly emerging new capabilities, and playing an important role in empowering and evolving the combat system.
● From system breach to compound confrontation——
Analyze the pros and cons and seek effective checks and balances
“Mosaic warfare” represents, to a certain extent, the possible direction for the development of future joint operations. We should fully study and grasp the winning mechanism of “mosaic warfare”, shape the information and communication field as a new domain that breaks the time and space boundaries of traditional wars, create a new concept of cloud-enabled operations, and build a strong defense information infrastructure support capability. Highlight the security and defense capabilities of military information networks, enhance the basic support capabilities for the operation of strategic and campaign command institutions, and continuously improve the network information system.
On the other hand, the emergence of the “mosaic warfare” theory makes it difficult for traditional combat methods to seize and control limited target nodes to achieve the system-breaking effect of destroying points and breaking links. However, it should be noted that any system has its inherent contradictions. Even the seemingly “impeccable” decentralized structure of “mosaic warfare” can still find ways to effectively crack it. For example, grasp the complexity characteristics of the system, use its correlation and dependence, highlight the functional suppression of the communication network, build a network and electricity composite attack path, and achieve the disassembly and isolation of each unit of the combat system; grasp the dissipative characteristics of its structure, Make use of its dependence on external information to highlight the camouflage and misleading of information data, prompting the combat system to transform into abnormal states such as information closure and information overload; grasp its group autonomy characteristics, use its dependence on key technologies to highlight the confrontation against intelligent algorithms Reduce efficiency and inhibit the intelligent driving force of each combat unit; grasp its functional non-linear characteristics, take advantage of its unknown vulnerabilities, highlight differentiated strike assessment on the battlefield, and explore and discover imbalance points in the combat system with higher efficiency and faster speed , looking for key weaknesses in the system to break.
With the continuous development of science and technology, the form of war has entered the era of information warfare. Information has become the dominant element of combat effectiveness. Both combatants are engaged in fierce confrontation around the collection, transmission and processing of information. Cyberspace is a channel for the transmission of data and information. The bridge between modern combat units.
The U.S. military was the first to militarize cyberspace. In 2008, the United States established the Air Force Cyber Command and defined cyberspace as the entire electromagnetic spectrum space, extending cognition and practice from the narrow information domain to the broad cyber domain. . In January 2018, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) released “TP 525-8-6 U.S. Army Cyberspace and Electronic Warfare Operational Concept 2025-2040”, which describes how the U.S. Army will operate in cyberspace and electronic warfare. operate in the electromagnetic spectrum to meet the challenges of future operational environments. Compared with other traditional combat domains, what impact will cyberspace have on future operations? In the context of future integrated joint operations, what breakthroughs can it bring to multi-domain joint operations?
Mysterious – Cyberspace Operations
The fifth major area of information warfare. The term cyberspace first appeared in the 1982 Canadian science fiction novel “Fragments of the Holographic Rose”, which describes a cyberspace where the Internet and human consciousness are integrated. According to the U.S. Department of Defense Military Vocabulary Dictionary, cyberspace is a global domain within the information environment that consists of independent information technology infrastructure networks, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, various local area networks and computer systems, and embedded processors and controller. With the continuous development of network technology, cyberspace has expanded from computer networks to the invisible electromagnetic spectrum, which is a physical field in the electromagnetic environment. It includes not only computer networks as we usually recognize them, but also all physical systems that use various types of electromagnetic energy.
In addition, in modern warfare, cyberspace is a new field of information warfare. It has been listed by the US military as one of the five areas that are as important as land, sea, air and space and must maintain decisive advantages. It involves network warfare, information warfare, electronic warfare, space warfare, command and control warfare, C4ISR and other fields. It is a fifth-dimensional battle space that transcends the traditional four-dimensional battle space of land, sea, air and space. It is both relatively independent and embedded in other fields. Compared with traditional fields, cyberspace has the characteristics of blurred border boundaries, wide coverage, and complex and changeable situations.
Cyberspace operations transcend the limitations of time and space. Due to the lack of geographical boundaries and natural boundaries in the electromagnetic spectrum, cyberspace transcends the limitations of geographical boundaries, time and distance, allowing cyberspace operations to occur almost anywhere, across land, sea, space and air operations, integrating traditional In the four-dimensional combat space field, attacks on remote targets can be carried out instantly. Since the propagation speed of information in cyberspace is close to the speed of light, high-speed information transmission will greatly improve combat efficiency and capabilities, and provide the ability to make quick decisions, guide operations, and achieve expected combat effects. More importantly, according to operational needs, achieving military goals or military effects in or through cyberspace can be divided into two types: offensive cyber operations and defensive cyber operations.
Offensive cyber operations refer to preventing, weakening, interrupting, destroying or deceiving the enemy’s network in cyber space to ensure one’s own freedom of action in cyber space. Its main actions include the implementation of electronic system attacks, electromagnetic system blockade and attack , network attacks and infrastructure attacks, etc. Defensive cyber operations include activities to defend, detect, characterize, counter and mitigate cyberspace threat events, aiming to protect the U.S. Department of Defense network or other friendly networks, maintain the ability to passively and proactively exploit friendly cyberspace, and protect data , network and other specified system capabilities.
Electromagnetic warfare in cyberspace
Strategic deterrence, public opinion wins. In recent years, there have been an increasing number of cyber attacks against economic, political, military and other targets. Due to the characteristics of large scale, good concealment, and ability to attack infrastructure networks, these attacks have become an advantage for some countries in political conflicts. means of advantage. During the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia used cyberspace as its position and radio-electronic warfare as assistance to cut off the Ukrainian system in communications and interrupt the Ukrainian command; it resisted negative news in public opinion and released positive news; it paralyzed the enemy on the Internet. Use the enemy’s website to create panic, and then cooperate with the frontal attack of the troops to achieve the goal of quick victory.
Global layout, capturing enemies from thousands of miles away. In the process of establishing a cyberspace security framework dominated by its own country, the United States has mastered the cyberspace operations of its allies and established global military bases and cyberspace interconnectivity. Relevant intelligence personnel complete network presets through intelligence operations in peacetime, such as using the Internet and other means to monitor and collect enemy network data through intelligence analysis. Through network presets, when necessary, network vulnerabilities can be exploited to invade the enemy’s network, control the system, destroy data, etc., to achieve “taking the enemy’s life thousands of miles away.” In July 2010, the United States invaded Iran’s nuclear power plant through a certain worm virus and took control of its core equipment, greatly delaying Iran’s nuclear program.
Give full play to the advantages of asymmetric combat and improve combat benefits. The “Shute” plan was proposed by the U.S. Air Force to suppress the enemy’s air defense capabilities. It uses asymmetric combat theory to destroy the enemy’s air defense system. The core goal is to invade the enemy’s communications, radar, computer and other network power systems. In war, the “Shute” attack can invade the computer network of the enemy’s air defense early warning system and communication system through remote radio, and then attack and paralyze the enemy’s air defense system, or attack the enemy’s available electronic systems and network systems to break through the enemy’s network. Block, and then use corresponding professional algorithms (mainly “Trojan horse” viruses) to invade the enemy’s radar or network system, monitor or steal relevant information, and leak important information about the enemy’s combat plan, troop deployment, and weapons and equipment, thereby helping Adjust the combat plan, combat structure and weapon ratio to your own side to obtain the maximum benefits at the minimum cost.
The future development of cyberspace operations
Paying increasing attention to it, countries are vigorously developing it. As countries’ understanding deepens, developing cyber capabilities and winning cyber wars have become an important part of countries seeking military advantages and winning future wars. In 2015, based on comments and photos posted online by members of an “Islamic State” organization, the U.S. military used big data analysis and reconnaissance positioning, and finally destroyed an “Islamic State” command post within 22 hours. At present, the United States has established a Cyberspace Command, organized a cyberspace combat force, deepened research on combat theory, and developed preliminary cyberspace combat capabilities. Other countries have also launched cyber competitions. In order to strengthen its cyberspace combat capabilities, France established a new Information Systems Security Agency. The British government released the National Communications Security Strategy and announced the establishment of a Cybersecurity Office and a Cybersecurity Action Center. Japan has established a cyber warfare force mainly composed of computer experts, which shows that cyber space warfare has aroused the interest of more and more countries.
Integration of multiple technologies to enhance cyberspace combat capabilities. With the breakthrough of new technologies, big data technology, 5G technology, and artificial intelligence technology can be applied to cyberspace operations. Big data technology can store large amounts of data, collect complex types of data, and can quickly calculate and obtain useful information. It can speed up the execution of all aspects of cyberspace warfare and make it more accurate. 5G technology has the characteristics of low latency, high transmission and large capacity, making cyberspace warfare more threatening in a global environment and multi-domain coordinated operations. In addition, artificial intelligence deep learning, reasoning and other capabilities can be used to simulate cyberspace warfare. In the process, the weaknesses of one’s own weapon systems can be found and improved. Through the deep integration of these technologies, cyberspace can be built into an intelligent A network environment with high transmission and precision can create an intelligent brain for future information-based joint operations and grasp the initiative in future operations.
Effectively promote joint operations. The use of cross-domain information-based joint operations is essentially a new combat form that jointly achieves operational goals by establishing a stable and efficient cyberspace information activity situation based on the deployment of geographical space. The joint forces have different information capabilities. Achieve a high degree of sharing and deep integration to enhance real-time situational awareness, improve command efficiency, and improve integrated combat effectiveness. Cyber capabilities can not only serve a single service branch or unit, but can also prioritize the protection of strategic-level goals, organize cyber wars and operations of various arms with a high overall level, and plan cyber operations in land, sea, air, and space dimensions. battle target.
Future wars will be intelligent and systematic wars. The “joint information environment” is a strategic move to achieve “cross-domain collaboration” and build “global integrated operations” capabilities. With the continuous improvement and development of technology, cyberspace Operations will become one of the core operational domains, which will greatly improve the effectiveness of future systematic operations and provide important support for seeking information advantages and winning wars.
Since the 21st century, with the deepening of the world’s new military revolution, the world’s military powers have proposed a series of new combat concepts and continuously improved them in war practice, thus leading to the accelerated evolution of war. With the rapid development of information technologies such as cloud computing, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and big data, as well as their widespread application in the military field, people’s mode of understanding war has gradually changed from summarizing actual combat experience to studying and judging future wars. At present, as the source of military capability building, the strength of operational concept development capabilities will directly affect the opportunity to win the war. In particular, the new military revolution in the world is booming, calling for innovation in combat theory all the time. Only by developing new combat concepts and designing future wars with a forward-looking perspective can we gain the initiative in preparing for military struggles.
The concept of combat fundamentally solves how to fight a war
First-rate armies design wars, second-rate armies respond to wars, and third-rate armies follow wars. The so-called “real war happens before the war” means that before the war begins, the theory, style, and fighting methods of the war have already been designed. How can it be unwinnable to fight a war according to the design? The key to designing a war is to design and develop new combat concepts based on understanding the characteristics and laws of war, promote innovation in combat styles and tactics, and fundamentally solve “how to fight a war.”
In designing a war, theory comes first. In recent years, the US military has proposed new concepts such as “network-centric warfare”, “air-sea warfare” and “hybrid warfare”, and the Russian military has proposed theories such as “non-nuclear containment strategy”, “strategic air and space campaign” and “national information security doctrine”, reflecting The world’s military powers are vigorously studying combat theories and seizing the military commanding heights. To a certain extent, operational concepts are the “organizing cells” for the formation of operational theories. Without complete concept generation capabilities, it is difficult to generate advanced theories. When a combat theory is proposed, relevant combat concepts need to be developed so that the combat theory can be “sinked” concretely, better improved, and transformed into military practice. When there is no operational theory concept, operational concept innovation can provide “raw materials” for studying operational theory. The military field is the most uncertain field, and people’s understanding of war is always evolving. However, innovation in combat theory cannot wait until the understanding matures before starting. Instead, it needs to actively develop and innovate combat concepts on the basis of existing understanding, construct a future combat picture, explore future winning mechanisms, and guide and guide military practice. Take the initiative in war. Therefore, innovation in operational concepts is becoming a strategic fulcrum and lever for military construction and development.
Operational concept development focuses on designing core operational concepts. The core combat concept is the nucleus and embryo of the combat concept. It reflects the essential requirements of combat and contains the “gene” for the growth of the combat concept. The entire concept system is derived and developed from this. At present, the understanding of the winning mechanisms of informatization and intelligent warfare is gradually becoming clearer, and it is time to focus the focus of designing wars on the development of main combat theories and key combat concepts.
The operational concept is an abstract expression of operational thoughts.
The term “operational concept” originated from the US military. It is a description of how to fight in the future. It is increasingly becoming an important starting point to promote the construction and development of the military. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Concept Development Guide points out that an operational concept is a concept, an idea, an overall understanding, and an inference based on specific events in the operational environment. It outlines what will be done in the broadest sense, and in more specific measures The above describes how the battle is fought. The US Marine Corps Combat Development Command Operational Development and Integration Directive states that an operational concept expresses how to fight a war and is used to describe future combat scenarios and how to use military art and scientific capabilities to meet future challenges. The US Air Force Operational Concept Development Doctrine points out that an operational concept is a conceptual description at the theoretical level of war. It realizes established operational concepts and intentions through the orderly organization of combat capabilities and combat tasks.
To sum up, the operational concept can be understood as an abstract understanding of operational ideas and action plans for specific current or future operational problems. Generally speaking, the operational concept includes three parts: first, the description of the operational problem, that is, the background of the operational concept, operational environment, operational opponents, etc.; second, the description of the solution, that is, the conceptual connotation, application scenarios, and action styles. , winning mechanism, capability characteristics and advantages, etc.; the third is the description of capability requirements, that is, the equipment technology, basic conditions, implementation means, etc. required to implement the operational concept. It can be seen that the operational concept should have the characteristics of pertinence, scientificity, adaptability and feasibility, and its connotation and extension will be continuously adjusted with changes in strategic background, military policy, threatening opponents, time and space environment, capability conditions and other factors.
In a sense, the operational concept is actually a transitional form of operational theory, and its ultimate value is to guide and pull military practice. The purpose and destination of developing new combat concepts is to tap into and enhance the military’s combat effectiveness. Only by transforming combat concepts into combat doctrine and combat plans can their value be fully exerted.
Innovation in combat concepts drives changes in combat styles
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the world’s military powers, in accordance with national strategic requirements and in response to new threats and challenges, have regarded the development of new operational concepts as a key step in the transformation of military capabilities, promoted changes in operational styles, and sought to gain opportunities for victory in future battlefields. In order to further strengthen their military leadership, the world’s military powers are accelerating the launch of a series of new combat concepts.
The U.S. military actively seizes the opportunities brought by scientific and technological progress, comprehensively uses cutting-edge technologies such as new generation information technology, artificial intelligence technology, and unmanned autonomous technology to propose mosaic warfare, multi-domain operations, distributed destruction, decision-centered warfare, and joint full-domain command and control. and a series of new operational concepts, promoting fundamental changes in operational thinking, combat styles, combat spaces and combat systems.
Unlike the US military, the Russian army implements iterative innovation in operational concepts in military practice. Recently, the Russian military has been committed to promoting the construction of joint combat capabilities, accelerating the development and deployment of new unmanned equipment, focusing on creating network information battlefield advantages, constantly enriching the connotation of its traditional combat concepts, and integrating them with new combat concepts such as hybrid warfare and mental warfare. Used to guide war practice.
Generally speaking, in recent years, the new combat concepts proposed by the world’s military powers are leading to profound changes in combat styles. Their capabilities, characteristics and advantages are mainly reflected in the following five aspects: First, unmanned combat equipment, based on the new combat concepts The proportion of unmanned equipment systems has increased significantly, and manned and unmanned coordinated operations have become one of the main combat styles, forming the advantage of using unmanned systems to control manned forces. Second, the deployment method is decentralized. The deployment of forces based on new combat concepts is distributed and inter-system They are interconnected and have interoperability capabilities, forming the advantage of separate systems and combinations; third, the kill network is complex. The kill network based on new combat concepts has more diverse functions. A single system can perform a variety of tasks, and its failure has a greater impact on the combat system. Small, forming the advantage of using more to control single orders; fourth, the response time is agile, and the new combat concept emphasizes quick decisions, taking the enemy by surprise, and forming the advantage of using speed to control the slow; fifth, the combat field is multi-dimensional, and the new combat concept Pay more attention to multi-domain linkage, expanding the battlefield from traditional land, sea and air to electromagnetic, network and cognitive domains, forming intangible and tangible advantages.
Operation concept development should adhere to systematic design ideas
Using operational concepts to guide the construction of military forces is a common practice among the world’s military powers. Comparatively speaking, the U.S. military has a relatively complete operational concept development mechanism and has built a relatively complete operational concept development system, which consists of concept types, organizational structures, specifications and standards, and support means.
In terms of concept types, U.S. military operational concepts can be basically divided into three categories: First, a series of operational concepts developed under the leadership of each service. They mainly start from the perspective of their own services to study potential enemies and future battlefields, redefine combat styles, and seek to win. new ways. The second is a series of joint operations concepts developed under the leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which are mainly composed of three levels: top-level concepts, operational concepts and supporting concepts. The third is the operational concepts developed by academia, think tanks, etc. The number of such operational concepts is not as large as the first two categories, but it is still an important part of the operational concept system. Through this system, the US military implements grand military strategies layer by layer through operational concepts into various combat operations, various combat capabilities, and various types of weapons and equipment performance for the troops, guiding the construction of joint forces and various services and arms.
In terms of organizational structure, taking the development of joint operations concepts as an example, the US military has established a working system composed of five types of organizations. The first is the Joint Concept Working Group, whose main responsibility is to review the concept outline and overall issues of concept development; the second is the Joint Concept Steering Committee, whose main responsibility is to supervise and guide the concept development plan; the third is the core writing team, whose main responsibility is to compile the concept outline The original concepts in the concept are transformed into joint operational concepts; the fourth is the concept research and development team, whose main responsibility is to provide operational concept development methods and plans; the fifth is the independent red team, whose main responsibility is to carry out independent evaluation to judge the rigor and scientificity of the concept.
In terms of norms and standards, for the development of joint operations concepts, the U.S. military has complete institutional system constraints and guidance to standardize, standardize and program the concept development, which is mainly reflected in a series of joint chiefs of staff chairman Directives and joint publications. For example, the “Joint Concept Development and Implementation Guide” aims to establish a governance structure for joint concept development, clarify the framework for joint operational concept planning, execution and evaluation, and promote the implementation of joint operational concepts; the “Joint Doctrine Preparation Process” aims to develop joint doctrine Standardize the preparation process and provide a clear process framework for transforming operational concepts into operational doctrine.
In terms of support means, the design, development and verification of operational concepts is a systematic project that cannot be separated from the support of various development tools and means. For example, tools such as DODAF2.0 model, IDEFO model and SYSML modeling language can provide standardized structured analysis models and logical description models for combat concept designers; model-based system engineering methods can provide combat concept designers and evaluation Verifiers provide capability models of equipment elements in the operational concept, which are used to design and build the operational concept framework. The U.S. military’s joint operations concept development uses network-based digital software, which has strong interconnection capabilities. All agencies involved in the development can share information in real time and improve development efficiency.
The mature development of operational concepts requires the cooperation of multiple parties
Developing an operational concept is a multi-disciplinary, multi-field work involving military science, philosophy, operations research, systems science and many other fields. It requires the cooperation of multiple parties to ensure that it is both advanced and forward-looking at the theoretical level and It is applicable and feasible at the practical level.
Establish a small core and large peripheral research team. The department initiating the development of operational concepts should give full play to its leading role and coordinate and schedule the research work from an overall perspective; establish a joint research and development team to give full play to the role of group wisdom and widely obtain new ideas and new ideas from all parties on the research of operational concepts. Methods and new perspectives; establish a cross-field and cross-department expert committee to supervise, review and guide related work from multiple perspectives.
Form a multi-departmental linkage working mechanism. In order to ensure smooth communication and efficient operation among various departments, it is necessary to first clarify their respective tasks and responsibilities. For example, the concept initiating department is responsible for overall planning and implementation, the laboratory is responsible for technical verification, the industrial department is responsible for equipment research and development, and the combat force is responsible for actual combat testing. Secondly, it is necessary to formulate relevant normative documents to ensure that all work is carried out in an orderly manner and to provide institutional support for the research and development of operational concepts. Finally, a demand traction mechanism, a collaborative research mechanism, an iterative feedback mechanism, etc. must be established to open up the link from research and development to practical application of combat concepts.
Promote the organic integration of theory and practice. Only through the cyclic iteration of “design research-deduction verification-actual military testing” can operational concepts be gradually adjusted, optimized and improved, and drive the development of war theory. Therefore, the development of operational concepts must pay special attention to the combination of theoretical innovation and practical application. Through the mutual driving of theory and practice, the fundamental purpose of leading the generation of new quality combat capabilities can be achieved. Specific methods include incorporating mature combat concepts into combat doctrine in a timely manner, preparing training syllabuses or teaching materials accordingly, and gradually promoting them to the troops; organizing relevant drills or tests to test the maturity and feasibility of combat concepts under conditions close to actual combat. nature, find and solve problems; use the capability indicators determined by the combat concept as a reference for equipment demand demonstration, drive the development of equipment technology, and promote the improvement of combat capabilities.
The rapid development of science and technology in the new era has brought many new opportunities and challenges to military capability building. Developing new combat concepts can help to keenly seize the military opportunities brought by scientific and technological progress, actively respond to threats and challenges caused by scientific and technological development, and timely grasp the direction and laws of the evolution of war forms, which can provide guidance for leading future war styles and seizing the opportunity to win. important support. At present, the international security situation is complex and ever-changing. To win future information-based wars, we need to regard the development of operational concepts as the starting point of national defense and military construction, actively carry out military technological innovation, promote the upgrading of weapons and equipment, achieve leapfrog development, and thus lead the new era. Military revolutionary trends.
(Author’s unit: Second Research Institute of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation)
Judging from the latest local war practice, cognitive domain operations have become an important variable that profoundly affects the direction of war. In cognitive domain operations, all parties compete fiercely for control of public opinion, information guidance, and cognitive shaping. There are not only physical confrontations, but also competitions in virtual space, demonstrating the distinctive characteristics of “technology +” in the digital era. Exploring the way to win in cognitive domain operations is of great practical significance for controlling the initiative in cognitive domain operations and winning future wars.
Seizing control of the brain has become the ultimate goal of cognitive domain operations
The brain is the material basis of all thinking activities and the command center that influences and controls human behavior changes. Feeling, perception and consciousness constitute the three aspects of the world that the brain reflects. How to win the right to control the brain has increasingly become the focus of research and attention by all warring parties in the field of cognitive domain operations.
Actively fight for sensory control. Feeling is the reaction caused by the characteristics of objective things in the human brain, and is the basis for various complex psychological processes. With the rapid development of brain science, molecular biology, neurochemistry and other disciplines, humans have gradually gained the ability to intervene and control the brain at the physiological level. According to foreign experimental results, inhaling oxytocin will make people more trusting of others and more empathetic, thereby affecting a person’s prosociality and moral performance. In future operations, the warring parties will use physical stimulation such as sound, light and electricity, or chemical drugs to act on the target’s hearing, vision, smell and other sensory systems. They may even directly act on the human brain to stimulate the target’s brain. Specific emotional reactions can achieve cognitive influence and control on the physiological level.
Effective competition for perceptual suppression. Perception is a psychological process formed on the basis of sensation and reflects the overall image and surface connection of objective things. Among them, the individual’s attitude, motivation, interest, as well as past experience and future expectations are the key variables that affect the individual’s perception of the perceptual target. During wartime, warring parties aim at the target’s psychological doubts, weaknesses, and needs, seize favorable opportunities, and use specific information to emotionally influence, mentally induce, or disrupt the target’s perception in order to increase the target’s perception of the target. The expectation of war risks weakens their will to resist and their determination to fight, thereby achieving the purpose of subduing the enemy with a small war, less fighting or even no fighting.
Comprehensive competition for the right to shape consciousness. Consciousness is realized through psychological processes such as feeling, perception, and thinking, and is manifested as the unity of knowledge, emotion, and intention. The fundamental purpose of war is to force the enemy to surrender. Judging from the war practice at home and abroad in ancient and modern times, in order to win the right to shape consciousness, the warring parties will do their best to mobilize all available military power and comprehensively use political, economic, cultural, diplomatic and other means to carry out political disintegration and diplomatic measures against the enemy. Isolation, guidance of public opinion, and declaration of legal principles can trigger rational thinking, ethical resonance, or value recognition of target individuals or groups, thereby changing their worldview, outlook on life, and values, forming a relatively stable and long-term cognitive influence or control, thereby achieving “complete victory.” “the goal of.
Controlling information becomes the key to cognitive domain operations
The weapon and ammunition of cognitive domain operations is information. Mastering the initiative in the generation, identification, acquisition, dissemination and feedback of information is the key to gaining battlefield advantage in the cognitive domain.
Actively implement strong psychological stimulation to promote information penetration. Confrontations in modern warfare are fierce and complex, with various elements of confrontation unfolding in multi-dimensional and multi-domain contexts, and fighter jets fleeting. The forces and methods acting in the cognitive domain must keep up with the development and changes of the battlefield situation, and make extensive use of strong psychological stimulation methods such as subliminal information implantation, acousto-optical electromagnetic psychological nuisance damage, and non-contact emotional control to take the initiative to induce the target. The subject’s emotions, will, thoughts, beliefs, etc. appear chaotic, confused or radically changed, thereby achieving the purpose of controlling and influencing the cognitive system of the target subject.
Extensive use of intelligent algorithms to achieve accurate push. As the Internet penetrates into every aspect of human life, everyone will leave massive amounts of data and information online. During wartime, warring parties will use modern information technologies such as big data, cloud computing, the Internet of Things, and blockchain to analyze the target’s social data, trajectory data, financial data, online shopping records, search records, personal communication records and other network data. The information is deeply mined and associated to achieve a “cognitive portrait” of the target object, and the target object’s interest preferences, behavioral trends, interpersonal relationships and value orientations are systematically analyzed, thereby three-dimensionally grasping the characteristics of relevant individuals or specific groups. Then, with the help of intelligent algorithm technology, personalized and customized cognitive information is accurately pushed to the target object, thereby affecting the target object’s attitude, emotion and value judgment towards the war, thereby promoting the realization of one’s own combat objectives and political intentions.
Effectively aggregate social support systems to achieve overall linkage. The social support system is the material and spiritual help and support that a person can obtain from others in his or her social network. It is a key factor that affects and determines the emotional support and cognitive direction of an individual. It can be said that for the success of cognitive domain operations, it is crucial to obtain the support and assistance of the target’s social support system. With the help of modern information technology, we can effectively connect to the target’s relatives, friends, classmates, partners and other specific social relations. By exerting targeted influence on the above-mentioned relations, we can gain the understanding, support and trust of the other party, and mobilize the specific relations to When the target object exerts influence, it is easier to win the trust and acceptance of the target object, and it is easier for the target object to undergo cognitive changes, thereby achieving the purpose of cognitive influence and control on the target object.
Virtual space becomes the main battlefield for cognitive domain operations
With the continuous expansion of human virtual space, virtual space is becoming the main battlefield of modern warfare, especially cognitive domain warfare, which determines the outcome of future wars to a certain extent.
Emerging communication forms have become new means of warfare in the cognitive domain. With the continuous development of mobile Internet technology, emerging communication forms represented by social media have gradually become a new platform and mainstream position for cognitive confrontation. Judging from recent local wars, the status and role of social media has become more and more prominent. All warring parties use personal blogs, forums and other platforms to publish battlefield graphics, video recordings and comments in real time, which has not only become a global mobile network media terminal It has also become the main battleground for the value perception game among different countries and different factions around the world. Emerging communication forms such as social media, with their unique decentralization and interactivity characteristics, have broken the information monopoly and information control in traditional communication methods and spawned numerous product styles. While meeting people’s information needs, they are also Unknowingly changing people’s perceptions. It is foreseeable that social media will play an increasingly prominent role in future cognitive domain operations.
Cyberspace has become a new space for cognitive domain operations. Under the conditions of informatization and intelligence, the threshold of network technology has been greatly reduced, making it possible to watch the game in real time around the world. Modern warfare has developed from “living room warfare” in the television era to “handheld warfare” in today’s all-media era. Online live broadcast is more intuitive and richer than any form of battlefield reporting, and “global synchronicity” has become a prominent feature. Through live broadcasts on the Internet, videos and pictures of fierce battles between the two warring parties, as well as numerous burned tanks and armored vehicles, as well as homes destroyed by the war and refugees fleeing their homes, can be visually displayed. People can see the micro-state of individual civilians and soldiers on both sides through the Internet. The “transparency” of the battlefield makes any attempt to conceal the truth and false statements more and more difficult. But on the other hand, the emergence of technologies such as intelligent voice cloning and video portrait simulation replacement means that what people see may not necessarily be “as seen” and what they hear may not be “as heard”. Cognition under online live broadcasts Domain operations add more room for possibility and imagination.
The intelligent network army has become a new force in cognitive domain warfare. The development of information networks has broken through the authenticity limitations of interpersonal communication, and it is difficult for us to determine whether the other end of the network is a real person. Based on the needs of large-scale interaction, intelligent, automated, and large-scale cyberspace robots are emerging. They are widely active in every corner of cyberspace. These intelligent network armies have the capabilities of intelligent recognition, intelligent response and even brain-like thinking. They are tireless and work around the clock. Intelligent network armies are becoming an important force in future cognitive domain operations. Judging from the current development trends of related technologies, major countries and even business organizations in the world are focusing on the potential prospects of network robots in group penetration, live broadcast follow-up, shaping public opinion, and managing network crises. In the flexible guidance of network intelligent robots, Increase research and development efforts on key technologies such as automatic acquisition of technology groups, automatic cultivation and group penetration, and provide intelligent and efficient technical support for public opinion guidance, cognitive shaping, and behavioral guidance and control by discovering and effectively utilizing the behavioral patterns of network users.
The Chinese Military Cognitive Warfare Operational Battle Rhythm with an Analysis of the Characteristics and Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations
Cognitive domain operations take people’s will, beliefs, thinking, psychology, etc. as direct combat objects, and then affect their decisions and actions by changing the opponent’s cognition. Entering the era of information-based and intelligent warfare, cognitive domain warfare has become an important form of great power game, with all parties striving to achieve political goals in a relatively controllable manner. Gaining insight into the characteristics and development trends of cognitive domain operations is of urgent and important practical significance for winning future wars.
At present, the cognitive domain has entered the war stage as an independent domain, and has increasingly become a common domain, a battleground, and a weight for victory in the game between great powers. Analyze the characteristics and development trends of cognitive domain operations, which are reflected in at least the following eight aspects.
The cognitive domain is the key domain for transforming military advantage into political victory.
On the surface, military confrontation is a confrontation between the hard power of both sides.
On a deeper level, no matter what the nature of the war is and for what purpose, it is ultimately a contest of human wills. The key to victory is the ability to impose your will on your audience. As long as the enemy’s will to fight is deprived and defeated, the war is won. Cognitive domain warfare uses human will, spirit, psychology, etc. as the target of confrontation, strengthening one’s own will while weakening the enemy’s will, thereby achieving the political goal of conquering the heart and mind. In this sense, the cognitive domain is the key domain for transforming military advantage into political victory. As war accelerates its evolution toward intelligence, cognitive quality advantages bring decision-making and action advantages, which can not only occupy the moral and legal high ground and create a favorable situation of justice and legality, but also realize small wars through hybrid warfare and comprehensive game means. Even the purpose of winning without fighting. Especially in the context of great power competition, the cost of war is high. All parties hope to intensify the competition for cognitive domains and force their opponents to retreat in a “humane” and “economic” manner.
By changing the opponent’s perception, it can change its decisions and actions.
The purpose of implementing cognitive attacks is to use an “invisible hand” to control the opponent’s will, making the opponent feel “I can’t” and “I dare not”, and then achieve the effect of “I don’t want to”. Foreign military practice has shown that cognitive attacks on people’s will, beliefs, thinking, and psychology can be long-term cultural implantation, information suppression in the form of “information ocean + covering one’s mouth to silence”, or preemptive speech. Active shaping of political power can also use historical grievances to provoke the outbreak of conflicts. At present, information technology, artificial intelligence technology, and media technology have strengthened their direct effects on the cognitive domain. Using intelligent generation software, a large amount of cognitive “munitions” can be produced to accurately act on the cognitive layer of combat targets, directly imposing “will” to rivals” and quickly change the strategic situation. Looking forward to the informationized and intelligent battlefield, situational awareness forces and platforms are widely distributed in combat domains such as land, sea, air, and space networks. Cognitive behaviors such as planning, decision-making, and control dominate operations in various combat domains, especially the cognition of human-machine hybrids in future intelligent warfare. Advantages will dominate the battlefield. Cognitive interference, cognitive confusion, cognitive blocking and other means can be used to create a “fog” of war cognition, inducing opponents to misjudge the situation and make wrong decisions and actions.
Cognitive domain operations are full-time offense and defense, full personnel coverage, full use, full domain shaping, and full government action.
Cognitive domain operations are all-round, multi-level, hyper-temporal, and cross-domain. They blur the boundaries between wartime and peacetime, front and rear, cross battlefields and national boundaries, go beyond the pure military field, and widely penetrate into politics. , economy, diplomacy and other social fields, showing the characteristics of “five completes”. Full-time offense and defense, there is no distinction between peacetime and wartime, and there is no difference between the front and the rear. It is expressed as being online all the time and in war all the time. Covering all personnel, anyone, including intelligent robots, may become the target of cognitive domain operations. It is used throughout the whole process of joint operations before and during the war. Before the joint military operation is launched, the cognitive shaping operation has begun and will accompany the military operation and will not stop with the military operation. Global shaping, cognitive shaping runs through all levels of strategy, operations, and tactics, and its scope covers all domains of land, sea, air, and space networks. Cross-domain empowerment has an impact on all-domain operations. As a whole-of-government action, cognitive shaping is naturally strategic and requires consistent and coordinated actions across departments, fields, military and localities, and levels to achieve the best communication effect.
The key is to seize control over the right to define the nature of an action or activity, the right to dominate the process, and the right to judge the outcome.
The cognitive game struggle involves multiple opposing parties and seems complicated. The key is to compete for the “three powers” in the cognitive domain. First, fight for the right to define the nature of the event. That is, how to view this incident, whether it is just or unjust, legal or illegal. Usually, pre-emptive definitions, group alliances and forced definitions, information suppression and unilateral definitions, setting issues and applying definitions are usually adopted to guide and shape the public to form qualitative perceptions. Second, compete for dominance over the event process. That is, how to do something, how not to do it, who did it right and who did it wrong, usually by setting up a trap and other methods, trying to dominate the development direction of the target event according to the state that one’s own side expects. Fast and slow, pause, continue and end. Third, compete for the right to judge the outcome of the incident. That is, how to evaluate this matter, who is the gainer and who is the loser, who is the immediate loser, who is the long-term loser, etc. All parties are trying to control the outcome of the incident by amplifying the advantages to themselves and the disadvantages to the enemy. The purpose is to use the extended effect of the incident to continue to harm the enemy and benefit themselves.
Morality and legal principles are the focus of contention between all parties.
Military operations have always paid attention to the principle of “discipline and reputation”. Although the shape of war is evolving at an accelerated pace, the essential nature of war as subordinate to politics will not change; the nature of war and the support of people’s hearts are still the key factors that affect the outcome of a war. On the battlefield in the cognitive domain, by occupying the commanding heights of politics, morality, and law, we can win the hearts and minds of the people and moral support, create a public opinion atmosphere in which moral support is abundant, and then seize the opportunity to defeat the enemy. In every war or conflict, whether it is the strong or the weak, whether the attacker, the defender, or a third party, all parties will try their best to seize cognitive dominance and the initiative of public opinion. They will do everything possible to package themselves with morality, focus on declaring a just position, and try to find ways to defend themselves. Qualify the war, justify the action, eliminate resistance, increase support, and create a favorable situation in which “righteousness” defeats “unrighteousness”. The strength balance between the two sides in the war is different, and the cognitive confrontation methods aimed at occupying the moral and legal high ground will also be different. Recent wars have shown that when a party has strong soft and hard power, that is, it has strong military strength, many allies and partners, and a large share of international voice, it often declares war in a high-profile manner; when military actions may trigger chain reactions, it is often handled in a vague manner. The word “war”.
Information is the basic “ammunition” for cognitive attack and defense.
In the network information age, the way humans communicate continues to undergo complex and profound changes. On-site interactive interactions have gradually given way to online connections. Some large-scale social platforms have become the main battleground for cognitive games and the main channels for influencing public cognition. Using information as ammunition to fight for the right to block international networks and control discourse has become today’s norm. One of the main actions of confrontation. On these platforms, various short videos have become the “first scene” for the public to understand the war situation, and information travels faster than cannonballs. The use and blocking, dominance and regulation of platforms have become the focus of battles in the cognitive domain. All parties strive to spread and amplify their own propaganda, denounce and suppress the other party’s propaganda by manipulating social platforms, forming a “I say more, you say less” “A situation where “I’m right and you’re wrong” and “I can only say it and you’re not allowed to say it”. As users of large-scale social platforms, the public is influenced by and affects others in the process of “listening”, “speaking” and even “doing”, and unknowingly becomes the agents and attack props of those behind the scenes.
Military operations play a key supporting role in shaping cognition.
The history of human war shows that military warfare is always the basic support of political contests, while psychological warfare is the effectiveness multiplier of military warfare. What cannot be retrieved on the battlefield cannot be expected to be retrieved at the negotiation table, let alone in the field of public opinion. In modern warfare, cognitive-communication operations always go hand in hand with joint military operations. Mental warfare and military warfare influence and support each other. The trend of military warfare becoming mental warfare and mental warfare becoming military warfare is more obvious. From the perspective of war practice, it is impossible without military strength, but military actions alone are not omnipotent. Multiple victories on the battlefield are not a sufficient condition for victory in war. In the Vietnam War, although the United States “won every battle, it lost the entire war.” At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States fought successive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, winning battlefield victories but not political victory. By the same token, military victory does not mean winning public opinion, and winning the battlefield does not mean winning strategic victory. In modern warfare, two types of people play an increasingly important role: those who win by writing thousands of lines of code, and those who win by writing thousands of messages. The side with superior quantity and quality of these two types of personnel will often have a higher probability of winning.
Cognitive countermeasures technology is increasingly used directly in warfare. In past wars, the influence and effect on the cognitive domain were mainly transmitted to the cognitive domain level by level through a large number of damaging actions in the physical domain. With the development and breakthroughs of information communications, artificial intelligence, biocrossing, brain science and other technologies, new cognitive warfare tools and technologies are directly targeting military personnel. Cognitive countermeasures use not only traditional information warfare weapons, but also an arsenal of neural weapons that target the brain. By then, machines will be able to read human brains, and human brains will also be able to directly control machines. Intelligent command and control systems can directly provide battlefield situation and decision-making assistance. Realistic cognitive ammunition and precise audience placement will greatly enhance the social impact. Cognitive countermeasures technology is increasingly being used directly in warfare. The indirect cognition implicit in informatization is gradually transforming into a direct influence and control of people’s cognition. It can be said that with the support of advanced technology, cognitive domain operations can achieve political goals more directly and efficiently by building a modern network architecture and developing a data visualization platform to quickly understand the information environment and effectively influence target groups.
Cognitive domain operations refer to using modern cognitive theory and science as a guide, using multi-domain means such as public opinion, psychology, and law, and using multi-dimensional technologies such as modern networks, media, text, pictures, videos, and numbers to carry out public opinion propaganda, psychological Attack and defense, fighting for people’s hearts, subverting confidence, influencing beliefs, fighting for thinking, and ideological struggle are important forms of fighting for people’s initiative in thinking, beliefs, values, personal attitudes, emotions, identification and judgment tendencies. Cognitive domain warfare is a complex collection of multi-domain warfare such as traditional public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, legal warfare, trade war, diplomatic warfare, technological warfare, and ideological warfare.
At present, cognitive domain operations have become an important basis for countries to carry out military struggles and struggles in other fields. Language confrontation driven by cognitive domain goals has become an important form of cognitive domain operations and deserves great attention.
A new area where language confrontation exerts influence on combat targets
Cognitive domain operations are an accompanying result of the development of contemporary cognitive science research. It is an emerging combat field that emerged after people actively explored the cognitive activities of the brain to gain a more complex, abstract, and thorough understanding of the brain. It is also a language confrontation. A high-end form of influence that targets the advanced and deep hidden activities of the audience’s brain. Regardless of whether it is the object of information, the producer of information, the information content itself or the channel of information, cognitive domain operations all run through the characteristics of cognition, and highlight the cognitive level from beginning to end.
From the perspective of the recipients of the information, this cognition targets the deep cognitive aspects of the brains of the opponent’s audience, including its people, the military, military commanders or important leaders, important figures in the political and business circles, and even directly including the opponent’s country leaders or leaders. Specific important generals of the army, etc., can also be specific groups of people or the public. It can involve cognitive preferences, cognitive shortcomings, cognitive habits, cognitive biases, and cognitive misunderstandings of individuals or groups; it can also involve beliefs, values, political identities, national identities, and social and cultural identities of individuals and groups. and emotional attitudes.
From the perspective of the sender and content of information, it should be infused with the cognitive design and arrangement of the information producer. This includes the unique cognition of the text, such as the discourse mode of the text, the narrative mode of the text, the observation perspective of things, The cognitive focus and depth of the narrative, the organizational form of the sentence, the value and other tendencies of the sentence, the acceptability of the concept of the sentence, etc.
In terms of the channels through which information is sent and disseminated, the form of text is closer to multimedia and multimodal forms, closer to the needs of cyberspace, closer to the advantages of contemporary smartphones, and closer to the characteristics of the current emerging media era, which means it is more in line with the audience. Cognitive characteristics of acceptance: cognitive habits and cognitive tendencies. The communication form of the text fully considers the cognitive effects in international communication, especially cross-cultural, cross-language, cross-media, and cross-group cognitive communication. In this way, the text will better influence the audience from a cognitive level.
Language confrontation generates new tactics in response to changes in combat styles
Throughout human history, it is not difficult to find that the patterns of military struggle have been constantly changing. From the initial physical struggle with the help of cold weapons, it has developed into a contest of mechanical power with hot weapons, and then into the checks and balances of information capabilities under high-tech war conditions. In recent years, it has also moved towards intelligent decision-making in the direction of intelligence and unmanned operations. Competition develops, and every change brings profound changes in tactics. In the current transitional stage of mechanized, informatized and intelligent coexistence, people not only pay attention to the struggle for dominance in the physical domain and information domain of the battlefield, but also pay more attention to the control of the cognitive domain that affects the main body of the war, that is, the way of thinking of the personnel on both sides of the war. , cognitive models and styles, values, emotional attitudes, cultural models, communication models, psychological strengths and weaknesses, cognitive preferences, cultural and knowledge maps, ideological identity and other fields of competition. The latter involves social personnel and the basic situation of social existence, which is the emerging field where cognitive domain operations have an impact, and its tactics have strong particularities.
Flexibility of issues: Cognitive domain operations can select many issues in the cognitive domain and carry out flexible combat operations. Depending on the current situation and needs, the topic can be selected to involve either a relatively macro strategic level (such as the ideology and system of the other party’s entire society, etc.), or a meso-level operational level (such as social issues in local areas or directions of the other party’s society: Social welfare policy or environmental protection policy, etc.), you can also choose to involve very micro tactical issues in society (such as the unfair, unjust, and unbeautiful side of society reflected by a certain person or a specific event). Issues in the macro, meso, and micro cognitive domains are interconnected and transform into each other. It is very likely that a micro issue will also become a major macro strategic issue. The question raised must be considered in relation to the entire military operation, and cognitive domain operations must be subordinated to the overall combat operations and serve the needs of the macro-political and diplomatic overall situation. What’s more important is that topics should be prepared in normal times and data on various topics should be collected in normal times, especially paying attention to various important data in real society. Once needed, these data can be quickly transformed into arrows, bullets, and artillery shells fired into the enemy’s cognitive domain, and even become strategic weapons that affect the overall situation.
Combat-level controllability: The important design of cognitive operations is that at the operational level, the overall system can be controlled and regulated, and corresponding upgrades or dimensionality reductions can be made according to changes in the situation. If the strategic level is needed, commanders can activate the design and force investment at the strategic level; if the operational level is needed, it can also be controlled at the corresponding campaign level; if it is only needed at the level of specific small issues, it can also be controlled at the corresponding level. The niche local level enables the entire operation to serve the needs of overall combat operations. The strategies, battles and tactics here refer more to combat design and force investment. Since the battlefield situation may change rapidly, some issues may also change at the level, from strategic issues to affect campaign and tactical-level effects; some issues, due to the particularity of tactical issues, become campaign-strategic issues that affect the overall situation.
Dominance of emerging media: The main channel of influence in the cognitive domain has shifted from traditional paper media and print media to emerging media. Traditional media mainly rely on a single medium, such as newspapers, magazines, books, flyers, posters, etc. to convey information; the later emergence of television brought about three-dimensional media. In the Internet era, especially the Internet 2.0 era and the birth of smart communication devices, people rely more on multi-media, multi-modal, short videos and short texts to convey information. The introduction of various advanced devices such as smart phones, smart tablets, and smart players, as well as the birth of various emerging social software and tools, have made emerging media the main tool for people to communicate and communicate. Emerging media, emerging social software and tools have become an important space for various forces to compete and fight in social security, public opinion security, ideological security, social security and political security. Internet security, especially the ability to grasp the security of new social media, emerging social software and tools, etc., is to some extent the key to the security of a country’s cognitive domain. Information from emerging media tools and new media spaces has become the main battlefield, main position and main contested space for cognitive operations in various countries. It is worth pointing out that the ideas and theories that influence people’s cognition will become the most influential weapons at all levels of cognitive domain warfare.
Language confrontation adapts to the intelligent era, cognitive computing enhances new computing power
In the era of artificial intelligence, based on the significant improvements in big data analysis and application, super computing power, intelligent computing power, natural language processing power, smartphone communication capabilities, and new generation network communication capabilities, humans have begun to be able to control the entire society and the entire network. Conduct accurate modeling and analysis of language, culture, psychological cognition, group emotions, and social behavior across domains, local groups, different local groups, and specific individuals. In particular, people’s profound understanding and grasp of brain cognition, human brain thinking, thinking patterns, habits and preferences, image schemas, cognitive frameworks, and even neural networks, human-computer collaboration, brain control technology, etc., as long as there are sufficiently diverse With dynamic data, people can calculate and simulate all people’s psychological activities, emotional activities, cognitive activities, social opinions, and behavioral patterns. Through deep calculation, actuarial calculation, and clever calculation, we can accurately grasp people’s cognitive world and form Delicate and profound control over people’s cognitive domains. This aspect also presents the following characteristics:
Comprehensive dimensionality of computing: As an emerging field, all aspects involved in the cognitive domain can be digitized and made fully computable across all processes and individuals. It can collect various types of information extensively and sort out the information, which can then be reflected as Big data about the diversified main factors of combat opponents can be used to carry out various calculations for the whole, groups, between groups, and individual data and between them. Therefore, based on thinking, psychology, emotion, and speech, which has not been possible in the past, Various activities in terms of activities, behaviors, etc. can be completed, displayed and accurately grasped through calculation.
Cognitiveness of computing: Computing in the cognitive domain embodies strong cognition. It can reveal more connections between various things, events, and people that are difficult to observe with the naked eye, and can reveal the same event framework. The clustering and hierarchical relationships between various concepts in the text reflect the explicit or implicit, direct or indirect deep cognitive connections between concepts, reveal the complex conceptual network system between concepts, and enable people to see completely beyond the ordinary naked eye. The deep cognitive world of observation.
Computing intelligence: Computing in the cognitive domain also reflects strong intelligence. This kind of intelligence is manifested in drawing intelligent conclusions through calculation. For example, through large-scale text collection and data mining, we can find the relationships between various topics, various opinions, various tendencies, various groups of people, various positions, and various demands that cannot be seen due to limited human power, and form a comparison. A more comprehensive, in-depth, accurate and systematic understanding of a certain problem to make scientifically optimized decisions. This kind of decision-making may be consistent with human intelligence, or it may exceed or even far exceed human intelligence. By making good use of the power of cognitive computing, especially by integrating the data of one’s own country and that of opponents, one can better prevent, warn, and deploy in advance, and achieve the best, fastest, and most accurate strikes and counterattacks. , and can also better reflect efficient, powerful and targeted protection. Cognitive computing here is more about a possible macro, meso or micro issue in different groups of people, different time periods, and different backgrounds, in the entire network domain or a certain local network domain, or within a specific group. The repercussions generated, especially the analysis and examination of the active and passive situations that both parties may present when playing games with opponents, and the attack and defense of the cognitive domain, etc.
Give full play to the subject position of discourse and release the new application of discourse power
Cognitive domain operations have a very important support, that is, they mainly rely on language media to exert their effects, mainly exerting influence through the discourse level, mainly through the narrative nature of discourse to form a hidden effect on the cognitive domain, and mainly through cultural models. To exert a potential effect, exert an explicit or implicit effect through cross-cultural communication. It is mainly reflected in the following aspects:
Uniqueness of textual discourse: The cognitive domain requires the use of information to exert influence. Although information may rely on the special visual effects of video images to be presented, fundamentally speaking, the uniqueness of the discourse synthesized by the text becomes the main basis for cognitive impact. Among them, the mode of discourse expression, the skills of discourse expression, the main design of the persuasiveness and appeal of discourse expression, especially the uniqueness of discourse narrative will be the key to affecting people’s cognition. This may include the perspective of the narrative, the theme and style of the narrative, the story frame of the narrative, the language innovation of the narrative, the key sentences of the narrative, the philosophy, humanities, religion, society, nature and other feelings contained in the narrative, and the identities of the different participants in the narrative. , the diversified evaluation of narratives, the authenticity, depth and emotional temperature of narratives, the subtle influence of narratives on opinions, the personal emotions, values, ideologies, and standpoint evaluations released by narratives, etc. The uniqueness of textual discourse is an important reliance on the cognitive influence of texts in cognitive domain operations. Making full use of the complexity of text, giving full play to the respective advantages of diverse texts, and giving full play to the implicit and explicit cognitive effects of text connotations have become the key to combating the cognitive domain of textual discourse. The most important thing is to innovate textual discourse, use newer words, more novel expressions, and more unique expressions to win over readers, so that readers can understand and subtly feel the ideas in the text, and accept them silently. Text ideas.
Potential of cultural models: To operate in the cognitive domain, we must have a deep understanding of the characteristics and models of different countries and national cultures. Different countries and different ethnic groups have different cultural models, and their philosophical thinking, traditional culture, religious beliefs, customs, and ways of thinking are all significantly different; citizens of different cultures also have different national psychology and national identity. The cognitive model should also have typical cognitive preferences belonging to the nation and culture, as well as corresponding shortcomings and weaknesses. Some people have obviously huge differences in understanding from other ethnic groups in the country, and even misunderstandings and hostility. Therefore, at the cultural level, cognitive domain operations are to grasp the overall cultural models of different countries, build cultural models of different groups in different countries, build different cognitive models of different countries on different things, and fully grasp the differences between a certain country and the The overall attitude and behavior on a series of things and issues, especially some typical cases, cultural taboos, religious requirements, spiritual pursuits, overall concepts, etc. It is necessary to make use of existing theories and findings to comprehensively construct the basic performance of different groups of people in the cognitive field on some typical, sensitive, and important issues, so as to provide important reference and guidance for the next step in cognitive operations. Strengthen the research and construction of the basic cultural characteristics and models of different enemy personnel, especially military personnel and personnel in key positions, including the opponent’s generals, officers, soldiers, etc., such as character psychological cognitive behavior and cultural model portraits , has become the core practice of cognitive domain operations. The cognitive analysis of ordinary people on the other side, especially ordinary citizens and citizens, as well as cognitive analysis of specific groups of people, including special non-governmental organization forces, is also of great value.
Cross-cultural strategic communication: Cognitive domain operations are international language communication and cultural communication, and need to follow the laws of international communication. It is necessary to grasp the basic paradigm of international communication, to skillfully combine domestic stories with international expressions, to skillfully combine the other country’s language and culture with the country’s stories and ideas; to be good at combining different art forms, including text, pictures, paintings, and music. (sound), video and other means or multi-modal means to realize the international dissemination of information. At the same time, we must coordinate multi-dimensional macro communication at the strategic level: we must use various means and rely on military-civilian integration to coordinate military-civilian communication; in addition to non-governmental organizations, we must especially rely on civilian forces, experts, opinion leaders, and ordinary people. The people come to help the military carry out cognitive domain operations; it is necessary to set topics in a unified manner, speak out from multiple points and multiple dimensions, form a strategic communication situation, form a good situation for emergency resolution of major operations, major issues, major crisis management and control, etc., and form a good atmosphere of public opinion , create positive effects, eliminate adverse effects or extinguish adverse effects. In particular, it is necessary to establish a capable team that is proficient in foreign languages, understands cross-cultural skills, understands the laws of international communication, and can speak skillfully on international multi-dimensional platforms. These personnel can usually conduct awareness, collection and discussion of a wide range of issues, establish personal relationships and fan groups with the help of ordinary or special issues; more importantly, at critical moments, through their fan groups, they can exert influence and complete strategic communication tasks. .
Currently, with the popularity of hybrid warfare, multi-domain warfare, and global warfare, cognitive domain warfare has become a common means of hybridization and hybridization. The process of cognitive domain warfare from unfamiliarity, emerging, development to strength, is also a reflection of traditional public opinion warfare, The advanced stage, complex stage and escalation stage of the development of psychological warfare and legal warfare. Its rise is more deceptive, vague, concealed, embedded, implantable and unobservable, especially considering its deep integration with contemporary emerging media, and its continuous learning and reference to integrate into multi-disciplinary, New ideas, new technologies, and new methods across disciplines and disciplines. As a result, cognitive domain operations have become a form of warfare that we must be highly vigilant and vigilant about.
(Liang Xiaobo, professor and doctoral supervisor at the College of Arts and Sciences, National University of Defense Technology)
[This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund’s major project “National Defense Language Capacity Building from the Perspective of National Defense and Military Reform”]
●Practice has proven that cognitive domain operations break the traditional online and offline data barriers. By integrating the use of telecommunications networks, the Internet, the Internet of Things and other channels, and with the help of advanced algorithms, the initiator can effectively switch between various spaces and optimize the combat style. , and even focus on private spaces and public spaces to accurately release interference information, thereby achieving effects that traditional combat methods cannot achieve.
●In future battles in the cognitive domain, the influence of rational factors such as science and logic on individual cognition is likely to be weakened, and cognitive confrontation may become a battle between emotion and emotion.
At present, the rapid development of intelligent technology is changing the logic of information dissemination in all aspects, making the impact of information on thinking and consciousness more profound and comprehensive, and human brain cognition has truly become an important field of military confrontation. In the era of intelligence, the continuous evolution of information dissemination mechanisms will systematically reshape cognitive confrontation from many aspects, thereby promoting fundamental changes in cognitive domain operations.
Artificial intelligence becomes the main driving force for cognitive domain operations
In the era of intelligence, information dissemination is based on data, and artificial intelligence technology runs through the entire process of information collection, production, and feedback. The extensive and in-depth application of artificial intelligence, a disruptive technology in the military field, will be a key support for the entire process of planning and implementation of future cognitive domain operations.
Artificial intelligence technology will run through multiple scenarios of future cognitive domain operations. In the process of deployment and rhythm control of combat operations in the cognitive domain, all parties involved in the war rely on advanced algorithms as the “regulators” and “gatekeepers” of the action. A large amount of information about battlefield operations from various combat domains provides the warring parties with Provide driving force for efficient decision-making and implementation of cognitive domain operations. Practice has proven that cognitive domain operations break the traditional online and offline data barriers. By integrating the use of telecommunications networks, the Internet, the Internet of Things and other channels, and with the help of advanced algorithms, the initiator can effectively switch between various spaces and optimize the combat style. It even focuses on private spaces and public spaces to accurately release interference information, thereby achieving effects that traditional combat methods cannot achieve.
In addition, artificial intelligence has evolved from empowering a single link to connecting all links and the entire process of combat. At present, artificial intelligence is still limited to locating target audiences in information dissemination to improve the matching rate between information and information sources. In future cognitive domain operations, artificial intelligence will play a “one-stop” role in the planning and implementation of cognitive domain operations, and will continue to strengthen the coupling between various links. Foreign militaries believe that in future operations in the cognitive domain, differentiated delivery of data can be used to activate robots to instantly create public opinion trends and influence cognitive effects. At the strategic and campaign level, based on long-term tracking data and continuously adjusted and optimized algorithm strategies, we can measure the cognitive status of different regions and groups, assist decision-makers in planning core narratives, major issues, etc., thereby regulating the implementation of actions and coordinated actions.
Autonomous confrontation has become a distinctive feature of cognitive domain operations
As intelligent programs move from collaborative and participatory dissemination to independent dissemination, and the connection ecology of intelligent terminals continues to expand, on the future battlefield, officers and soldiers will increasingly be able to receive various types of information sent by intelligent programs and intelligent terminals. In the virtual space, the interactive communication between digital twins and virtual people will affect people’s cognition in the real world. Judging from the development trend of cognitive domain operations under intelligent conditions, human intervention will gradually decrease, the collection, synthesis, and transmission of information ammunition will become more autonomous and efficient, and the formulation and execution of discourse strategies and action strategies will become more autonomous. The whole process is faster than ever. But in terms of results, people are still the ultimate target of cognitive domain operations, and the process accelerated by autonomous weapon empowerment will continue to strengthen the control of human cognition.
With the help of autonomous countermeasures tools such as intelligent programs, intelligent terminals, digital twins, and virtual humans, all parties involved in the war will have more flexibility in cognitive domain combat situation layout, time and space application, and information content design. Information authenticity confrontation will be more protrude. In future cognitive domain operations, autonomous weapons will likely break through the limitations of power and time and space, and their action patterns will become more complex. The practice of foreign military forces shows that using the Internet to carry out “sprinkler-type” communication for the general public and “drip-type” communication for specific groups will become a common pattern of cognitive domain operations. Smart programs and smart terminals can support the development of more and more complex behavior patterns due to their features such as batch copy deployment and non-intermittent operation. For example, you can focus on specific issues and target specific attack targets, quickly mobilize a large number of social robots, and take turns to spread information, or use smart devices around specific individuals to collect relevant data, and use conversational robots and virtual humans to interact with individuals for a long time and continue to induce them. achieve combat objectives.
In future cognitive domain operations, autonomous weapons covertly control the cognitive domain battlefield will become the norm. Social robots can create fake public opinions and fake hot spots as needed, thereby generating more individual perception fog; intelligent synthesis technology will lower the threshold for producing false information. This will increase the cost and difficulty of identifying counterfeiting; it will be more difficult to identify robot accounts and virtual human information sources, and “one-on-one” cognitive fraud will become increasingly common.
Emotional conflict becomes a prominent attribute of cognitive domain operations
In the era of intelligence, new technologies will broaden the scope of human cognition and deepen people’s perception. Technologies such as extended reality and the metaverse will present battlefield environments, event scenes, etc. more holographically and transparently, and the scenes will be touchable, perceptible, and interactive. The audience will be more subject to the influence of perceptual logic when recognizing the truth of events.
Thanks to the development of the mobile Internet, the speed of information dissemination has increased rapidly. The centralized release of large batches of information in a short period of time can greatly shorten the reaction time of individuals, making it difficult for individuals to think deeply. Before the full picture of the incident is fully revealed, the audience has often formed a stance or even turned their attention to a new focus. The mode of outputting conclusions based on fragmented clues intensifies irrational and emotional reactions to the information. In future battles in the cognitive domain, the influence of rational factors such as science and logic on individual cognition is likely to be weakened, and cognitive confrontation may become a battle between emotion and emotion. In the decision between appealing to reason and appealing to emotion, all parties involved in the war are paying more and more attention to moving people with emotion, using emotional means to stir up, occupy and even polarize the minds of the target objects, and dominate the confrontation situation in the cognitive domain.
In the era of intelligence, cognitive leveraging relies more and more on rational competition. On the one hand, emotional arousal strategies are used to enhance cognitive resonance. In future cognitive domain operations, action initiators will selectively present cruel and fierce battle scenes, post-war tragedies, or the casualties and current status of soldiers participating in the war to the audience, thereby strongly stimulating the audience’s emotions and awakening the audience’s innermost feelings. emotional identification. As a node in the communication network, people can collect various physical data through intelligent algorithms, allowing action initiators to more accurately judge the emotional effects of information, thereby dynamically adjusting content and strengthening emotional responses. Action initiators use data calculations to select groups with similar understanding contexts and the same emotional characteristics, or select specific individuals who are susceptible to influence and have greater influence value, and target and disseminate homogeneous information flows to stimulate them. Group cognitive resonance.
On the other hand, moral coercion strategies are used to stimulate value recognition. Faced with the accumulation of fragmented and irrational cognitive response patterns, combat action initiators can occupy the moral high ground through a binary oppositional discourse system, gather a torrent of self-interested value cognition, and then achieve a coercion effect. The rich presentation formats and social channels that directly reach the public in the intelligent communication environment provide convenient means for action initiators to use this strategy. In local wars in recent years, technological evolution has gradually promoted moral coercion strategies. For example, social media has exposed past secret diplomacy to the public. Leaders and politicians of warring parties have used this method to live broadcast or make the entire decision-making process public with other countries. The details of communication among political leaders, elite groups, etc., and the discourse strategies increasingly highlight moral arbitration and criticism, thereby influencing and stimulating the international public to support one’s own value position.
The Internet of Everything expands the battlefield space for cognitive domain operations
With the development of information communication technology, social media has gradually become the main battlefield for shaping cognition. Institutions, individuals and the public on all warring parties can directly contact and interact with each other through social media, making it possible to compete for cognition around the clock.
In the era of intelligent communication, the Internet of Everything has become a new social connection model, and communication subjects and communication behaviors are everywhere. Under this influence, the cognitive domain battle space will expand to smart IoT terminals and scenarios, and extend to both the physical space and the virtual space. The Internet of Everything has led to the ubiquity of the cognitive domain battle space, which will further promote the ubiquity of combat subjects. Natural people, intelligent terminals with information sending and receiving capabilities, and even virtual characters in the online world may become combat subjects, and cognitive domain operations will participate in the war. The types of forces will be greatly expanded, and the organization method of cognitive domain operations will shift towards distributed collaboration.
In future cognitive domain operations, humans and machines deep in the hinterland of conflicts will become important forces in combat. With the support of intelligent technology, they will collaborate to draw battlefield pictures and participate in “writing” the entire process of war. Frontline soldiers continuously share their personal battlefield experiences through social networks, then push them to the world in a timely manner after personalized packaging. Individual soldier equipment and combat platforms will be responsible for collecting and transmitting battlefield images, and trigger automatic processing and release mechanisms according to preset procedures. , cooperate with physical space combat operations in various ways to compete for information and brain control. With the continuous development of communication technology, frontline soldiers and intelligent equipment can also reprocess and reprocess the information they have in a targeted manner according to superior instructions, so as to more conveniently and panoramically present the battlefield scene that one wants to express. , to achieve the ultimate goal of cognitive domain operations to capture the mind and capture the will.
——Thinking of “decision-centered warfare” and cognitive complexity
中国军网-解放军报
Editor’s Note Complexity science is one of the frontier fields of contemporary scientific development. British physicist Stephen Hawking said that “the 21st century will be the century of complexity science.” As a social phenomenon in human society, war has always been a complex giant system full of possibilities. In recent years, with the evolution of war forms, the epistemology under the traditional scientific system has become increasingly difficult to meet the needs of the development of war practice. Paying attention to the scientific principles and thinking methods of complexity may be the key to opening the door to modern warfare. This article studies and discusses “decision-centered warfare” from the perspective of complexity science.
“Decision-centered warfare” is a new concept that has emerged in recent years. Why was the “decision-centered war” proposed? According to the US military, it is necessary to “fight a war that the opponent cannot understand.” Since the beginning of the 21st century, with the evolution of war forms and continuous changes in combat methods, the US military has found that network-centric warfare in the traditional sense has become increasingly difficult to adapt to the reality of the battlefield. In this context, “decision-centered warfare” came into being.
1. Create complexity
The so-called “decision-centered warfare” is to achieve diversified tactics through the upgrading and transformation of combat platforms and distributed deployment with the support of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence. While ensuring its own advantages in tactical selection, it imposes high complexity on the enemy. , in order to interfere with its command and decision-making capabilities and achieve an overwhelming advantage over the enemy in a new dimension.
Why “the opponent can’t understand”? In fact, through distributed deployment, flexible combination, and intelligent command and control, the opponent will not understand the battlefield situation and combat mechanism cognitively, and will be at a loss as to what to do. This is another transformation of war confrontation from competing for “greater power” in mechanized warfare, to competing for “faster” in information-based warfare, to competing for “making the right decisions” in future wars. In the words of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist, “One who subdues the enemy without fighting is a good person.” Through clever command, control and decision-making, the battlefield situation becomes more complicated, making it impossible for the opponent to fight.
How to do this? Simply put, it is to use the nature of complex systems to find the opponent’s “vital gate” to exploit and control. A basic method is to reshape the opponent’s decision-making process by increasing complexity, forcing the opponent to introduce new decision-making parameters, causing its decision-making to become complicated, thereby changing the causal relationship and decision-making process, and ultimately leading to chaos. Adversarial situations have been able to balance in the past because all participants knew the outcome of the game, making it easy to make trade-offs, but complexity often destroys this balance. This is why complexity can be used as a weapon.
It should be noted that the battlefield is fair to any party. In the future battlefield, in order for the enemy to feel the complexity of decision-making in one direction and not to be troubled by the complexity, we must first be superior to the opponent in command and control capabilities. The complexity of battlefield decision-making is mainly reflected in the judgment and decision-making links of the “OODA” loop. Under normal circumstances, the “OODA” cycle can complete the complete cycle from observation, judgment, decision-making to action. However, if there is a way to make the battlefield more complex so that the opponent cannot make effective judgments in a timely manner, and thus cannot enter the decision-making and action links, the opponent’s “OODA” loop can always be limited to the observation and judgment links, and a closed loop cannot be formed. This may be the result of “decision-centered warfare” trying to create complexity. Therefore, how to make quick judgments has become a primary concern. If this cognitive process can be completed quickly with the support of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, that is, so-called intelligent cognition can be achieved, the speed of the “OODA” cycle can be greatly accelerated and unilateral advantages can be achieved.
Drawing correct judgments based on observation is the prerequisite for making correct decisions. But this can only be done under the condition of “having cognitive ability”. Currently, in systems such as command information systems and war game deduction systems, these cognitive tasks are basically completed by humans. Past attempts to autonomously complete judgments and decisions by artificial intelligence systems have been almost unsuccessful because the problem of intelligent cognitive modeling has never been solved. The behaviors displayed by various models are more or less “mechanical” and cannot truly show the characteristics of intelligence. Foreign militaries have also been focusing on “human behavior modeling” in recent years, but progress is still slow at present. Why is intelligent cognition so difficult, and what is the difficulty? The author believes that the core difficulty lies in how to understand and deal with complexity.
2. Understand complexity
At the beginning of this century, the Rand Corporation of the United States used a simulation system to conduct more than 1,700 deductions on the combat needs of the U.S. Air Force in response to possible military conflicts in a certain hotspot area around 2005. It then conducted statistical analysis and finally concluded how the U.S. Air Force Conclusion to maintain superiority on the battlefield. This statistical analysis method has a basic assumption: each trial is independent and unordered, and the rules do not affect each other. It’s like tossing a coin. If you toss it heads once, it’s likely to be heads the second time. But if you throw it 10,000 times, the probability of the result being a certain side will get closer to 50%. This method is scientifically accurate when used in physical research, but when transplanted to the study of human social issues such as war, the situation becomes different.
Human beings are cognitive and do not just obey the laws of physics like physical entities. Commanders will not simply repeat mechanically when analyzing combat problems. Normally, when people make decisions, they will consider the previous results, which will lead to adjustments to the next action. In this way, the inherent power law characteristics of human behavior will appear, which is often called the “eight-eighth law”. Therefore, we cannot simply copy physical thinking to think about human society.
The reason for this is mainly because we are often accustomed to thinking about problems in a simple way of reductionism. The simple system structure remains unchanged, the results are deterministic, the cause and effect correspondence is clear, repeatable, predictable, decomposable and reducible, etc., have become our default scientific thinking method. But there are still many complex systems in the world, and these systems have a holistic nature, such as the human body, society, economy, war, etc., all fall into this category. What is the overall nature? That is, what cannot be seen locally, but exists when viewed as a whole, is the overall nature. For example, a living person and a dead person are the same in terms of composition, but the difference between a dead person and a living person lies in whether there is life, and life is a holistic quality. The structure of complex systems is variable and has characteristics such as adaptability, uncertainty, emergence, and nonlinearity, and the results are neither repetitive nor predictable. Society, economy, war, cities, including intelligent systems, these human-related systems all have these characteristics. In fact, they are all typical complex systems. Therefore, war has the characteristics of “no return after victory”, which actually reflects the “unrepeatable” nature of the complex system of war.
It is precisely because of the complexity of complex systems that causes and results cannot correspond one to one, which will lead to the failure of the similarity principle, so it cannot be modeled and studied using traditional methods. In order to solve complex problems, some traditional physics methods were mainly adopted in the past, such as statistical methods and simple life body modeling methods based on Agent. This is the case with the Rand Corporation study mentioned earlier. Although it can solve some problems, when it is used to solve problems related to people, especially cognition, the results obtained deviate greatly from reality and are unsatisfactory. .
Why is this happening? This is because the origins of war complexity and physical complexity are different. The source of physical complexity often lies in the complex laws of physical motion; while the complexity of war comes from human cognition. Because humans are not chaotic particles without thoughts, nor are they lower creatures with simple life logic, but are intelligent creatures with cognitive abilities of judgment and decision-making. People will reflect on the results through causal relationships, sum up experiences and make adjustments, and then decide how to act next. Moreover, human cognition will continue to develop, which will further affect subsequent cognition. However, because cognition is highly uncertain, future actions are difficult to predict.
It can be said that under the current technological conditions, what can be predicted are basically simple systematic laws of the physical world, while the impact of human cognition on society or war is often difficult to predict. Therefore, it is a common mistake we make to use physical thinking to think about human society. Based on the complexity of cognition, which is completely different from those immutable physical laws, when we deal with the complexity of war, we must focus on the core feature of “cognition” and work hard on command and control.
3. Coping with Complexity
The core of “decision-centered warfare” lies in the acceleration of cognition. Because almost all changes in war can be seen as cognitive upgrades and complications. In the author’s opinion, to deal with the “decision-centered battle”, we need to “fight complexity with complexity” and start from the basic work.
The first is to understand the core concept of “decision-centered warfare”. That is to seize the initiative on the battlefield by actively creating complexity. For one’s side, one needs to manage one’s own complexity; for one’s enemy, it means imposing more complexity on the opponent. The second is to understand the changes in the mechanism of war. The evolution speed of combat systems is increasing exponentially, which will make it difficult to perceive, control and manage complex battlefields, and the role of intelligent cognition will become more prominent. To this end, it is necessary to focus on the focus of “command and control” and regard battlefield management capabilities as the key. The third is to find the correct concepts and methods of coping. Starting from war design, we take the direction of decision-making intelligence as a breakthrough.
In recent years, a series of achievements in the field of artificial intelligence have brought hope to solving the problem of intelligent command and decision-making. The AlphaGo series of research has brought breakthroughs to decision-making intelligence technology; and the emergence of the GPT large model has further confirmed that decision-making intelligence and even general artificial intelligence are possible in the future. It now seems that artificial intelligence will be deeply involved in wars in the future, which is a reality that must be faced. And this will bring more complexity to war and battlefields.
Decision intelligence research should be placed at the command and control level. To win a war, command and control decisions need to embody both “science” and “art.” The scientific nature of command and control is mainly reflected in how to do it “when you know how to do it”, such as using the obtained command data (weapons and equipment, force formation, battlefield environment, opponent intelligence, etc.), command methods (tasks, processes, procedures, operations planning, etc.) , planning, optimization, etc.), formulate a combat plan and implement it. The artistry of command and control is reflected in knowing how to do it “when you don’t know how to do it.” This is where true intelligence lies. The method is nothing more than continuous trial and error, accumulating experience, finding ways to solve problems, and forming new scientific knowledge. In fact, in reality, commanders continue to discover and summarize winning rules through trial and error, and each commander also has his own intuition and experience.
Therefore, true intelligence is actually finding solutions to exceptions. Following rules is not intelligence, finding your own way to solve problems is the key. Perhaps this is the core of decision-making intelligence and a goal that requires further efforts.
With the dawn of the intelligent era, artificial intelligence is approaching at a speed beyond people’s imagination, not only impacting all walks of life, but also changing our understanding and concepts. As a field that is inherently sensitive to technological changes, the military development and application of artificial intelligence is booming.
Currently, with the rapid development of information technology, sensors, big data and the Internet of Things, the military application of artificial intelligence is ushering in a new round of opportunities. Penetrating into all fields of military applications, artificial intelligence weapons and equipment with efficient command, precise strike, automated operation and intelligent behavior will contribute unique “machine intelligence and power” to the future battlefield.
Engels once said that the application of cutting-edge technology first began in the military field. When new technologies significantly enhance military combat capabilities, they will lead to new military changes. Traditional military powers such as the United States and Russia foresee the broad application prospects of artificial intelligence technology in the military field. They all regard artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology that “changes the rules of the war game” and believe that future wars will be intelligent wars and future armaments. The competition will be an intelligent arms race, and has been planned in advance, hoping to seize the opportunity of artificial intelligence military applications and strive to create a “generation gap” with potential opponents. A few months ago, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Shanahan officially issued a memorandum on the establishment of a “Joint Artificial Intelligence Center”, which will further increase the application of artificial intelligence in U.S. military military projects. Russia also regards artificial intelligence as the commanding heights of future military competition, and is stepping up the development of humanoid robots that can drive vehicles and the formation of robot troops that can fight side by side with human soldiers.
It should be noted that the military application of artificial intelligence is a “double-edged sword.” “It may become the best thing that has ever happened to mankind, or it may become the worst thing.” Hawking’s evaluation of artificial intelligence enlightens us to maintain sufficient caution in the face of the “menacing” military applications of artificial intelligence. careful. In the future, as a large number of intelligent unmanned systems are used on the battlefield, the cost of war will be greatly reduced, and “zero casualties” of combatants are expected to become a reality. This can easily lead to more casual use of force by military powers. In a complex battlefield environment, highly intelligent unmanned combat systems are very likely to encounter problems such as recognition errors, communication degradation, and even “defection and counterattack” after enemy electromagnetic and network attacks. Indiscriminate killing of innocent people and loss of control of the system are even more likely to occur. It brings endless worries to the military application of smart weapons.
It can be seen that major issues related to war must not be easily left to machines to make decisions. Even if the military application of artificial intelligence becomes increasingly mature, we cannot allow the “barbaric growth” of smart weapons. We need to be alert to the security and safety risks that artificial intelligence may bring. Legal, ethical and many other issues. Social security supervision and control should be strengthened to form a social governance model adapted to the era of artificial intelligence; actively participate in discussions and negotiations on international arms control of artificial intelligence, and contribute Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions to the security, legal and ethical issues brought by artificial intelligence; firmly establish The idea that humans are the leaders in the human-machine relationship enables safe and effective control of artificial intelligence and allows it to serve the peaceful development of mankind, rather than letting artificial intelligence become an “accomplice of the devil.”
Regarding this technological form that is expected to profoundly change the form of future warfare, we must not only keep a clear mind, but also fully stimulate its vitality. Judging from the history of military changes, science and technology have played a stimulating and basic supporting role in previous changes. Whoever has the sensitivity to technological changes and achieves technological breakthroughs first can master the new rules of war and control the war. The commanding heights to win future wars. For an army, the inability to correctly predict the direction of military technological breakthroughs and grasp changes in war patterns will not only lead to “technological generational differences”, but also lead to crises such as core capabilities and national security.
Today, in the face of “big changes” and “big breakthroughs” in the development of science and technology, we should deeply grasp the intrinsic driving influence of artificial intelligence on the evolution of war forms from the perspective of designing wars and mastering the rules of victory, and truly seize the initiative to win future wars. We need to firmly grasp the major historical opportunities for the development of artificial intelligence, do a good job in strategic planning, highlight the goal traction and planning leadership of intelligence, closely track cutting-edge technologies, and take proactive actions to effectively safeguard national security.