All posts by admin

中國軍隊贏得現代戰爭認知領域作戰的關鍵

Chinese Military Key to Winning Modern Warfare Cognitive Domain Operations

縱觀現代戰爭,認知博弈已成為攻防的焦點。 是否精通認知領域的作戰策劃,將大大影響戰爭的方向和結果。 深刻理解認知域作戰的內涵、外延和範疇樣式,精確掌握其勝利機制與發展趨勢,是理解戰場脈絡、打贏現代戰爭的關鍵。

認知域作戰是兵棋新焦點

與傳統作戰不同,認知域作戰不再侷限於陸地、海洋、空中、太空、電力、網路等領域。 它突破了傳統的物理域和資訊域。 具有獨特優勢,呈現新特點,拓展現代戰場新領域。

認知域作戰拓展了戰爭域空間。 首先,認知領域的戰場空間廣闊,主要體現在人的精神、心理、思考、信念等認知活動。 其打擊對象主要是敵對國家元首和政治人物、軍事人員、社會菁英和廣大民眾。 其次,認知域作戰的形式多種多樣,包括但不限於政治外交壓力、經濟封鎖和製裁、文化滲透和侵蝕等。第三,認知域作戰的目標廣泛,主要是為了動搖破壞敵人的信仰,瓦解敵人的意志,影響改變敵人的決策,進而造成社會混亂、決策錯誤、敵軍士氣低落,甚至顛覆國家政權。

認知域作戰模糊了戰爭域的界線。 認知域運作的主體是人。 人是戰爭中最活躍的因素,尤其是高層決策者的認知,體現了戰爭的整體意志,直接影響戰爭的全局,決定了戰爭的勝負。 國家領導人和軍隊將領的認知是認知域作戰的重點目標。 民意、社會基礎、國際輿論通常是認知域作戰的基礎,是推動戰爭進程與方向的關鍵力量。 認知域作戰混合了常規和非常規作戰,模糊了戰場的界線。 它旨在對訊息接收者進行認知誘導和攻擊,繞過傳統戰場,直達最薄弱的環節——人。 戰術行動可以實現戰略目標,從根本上改變戰場環境,改變戰爭結果。

認知域作戰達到最終戰略目標。 中國古代兵法有云:“用兵之道,先攻心,下攻城;先戰心,下戰兵。” 認知域作戰的目的在於佔領認知優勢,影響敵方決策和行為。 以最小的成本取得最大的戰鬥力。 正如克勞塞維茨在《論戰爭》中提到的,「戰爭是迫使敵人服從我們意志的暴力行為」。 由於認知域作戰不是針對有生命力量的硬殺傷,而是針對隱形目標的軟殺傷,因此不僅可以“迫使敵人服從我的意志”,而且客觀上可以使敵人從內部摧毀自己,使其無力反抗。 、瓦解,最終不戰而屈人之兵,實現「全面勝利」的戰略目標。

認知域作戰是軍事改革的新產物

目前,世界百年未有之大變局正在加速發生。 國際情勢日益複雜,局部戰爭和區域衝突持續。 認知域作戰作為一種新的作戰方式,在新一輪軍事改革浪潮的推動下變得越來越重要。

戰爭法則是認知領域戰鬥的基本規則。 認知域作戰仍遵循戰爭的基本法則。 首先,正義必須伸張。 正義戰爭推動歷史發展並最終戰勝非正義戰爭,佔據道德高地的認知域作戰具備先勝條件。 二是強者勝,弱者敗。 科學與技術的進步催生了先進的軍事理論,推動了高科技裝備的發展。 奪取控制權和控制權可以實現降維打擊,瓦解敵軍。 第三是主觀引導符合客觀實際。 認知域的運作必須建立在一定的客觀物質基礎上。 必須綜合考慮戰場環境、狀況

必須權衡各方利益,做出有利的決定。 四是重點操作牽動全局。 在以網路為中心的系統作戰中,認知域往往成為最關鍵的環節,其成敗可以決定戰局。

理論創新是認知領域運作的基礎支撐。 近年來,美軍先後提出「混合戰」、「馬賽克戰」、「灰色地帶衝突」等新作戰理論。 它以認知域作戰為主要作戰手段,已形成較成熟的理論。 俄軍在長期的軍事實踐中也形成了自己的一套混合戰方法,特別是在敘利亞戰場,巧妙地運用「格拉西莫夫」戰術來應對「混合戰」。 日本近年來也大力發展軍事實力。 在其新版《國防白皮書》中,首次提及「跨域」作戰概念,旨在突破傳統領域,將認知域等新領域作為其軍事力量發展的重點方向,使它更加主動。 和外向性。

軍事實踐是認知域作戰的重要基礎。 從近期局部戰爭來看,認知域戰已成為現代戰爭的主要作戰方式,並且取得了較高的戰鬥力。 認知戰與反認知戰的對抗相當激烈。 2010年,美國等西方國家發動認知戰,炒作突尼斯民主運動,製造“阿拉伯之春”,使中東陷入混亂,並讓恐怖組織趁機肆虐。 美國企圖透過推翻埃及政府、發動利比亞戰爭、幹預敘利亞戰爭等方式來鞏固霸權。 2014年,俄軍透過策略組合、多維突破、輿論營造等方式控制了克里米亞。 其認知域操作也具有非常鮮明的特徵。

認知域作戰是戰爭規劃的新方向

隨著高新技術的不斷發展及其在軍事領域的廣泛應用,未來戰爭形態將加速演變,戰爭的複雜性和未知性急劇增加。 為此,我們要事先規劃,科學統籌,加強認知域作戰能力建設,深度融入未來戰場,有效掌控未來戰爭主動權。

推動認知域作戰制勝機制研究。 認知域作戰作為未來戰爭的重要作戰手段,其地位和角色將更凸顯,發展前景也將更加廣闊。 控制認知力已成為奪取戰爭控制權的重要組成部分。 贏得未來戰爭,必須跟上戰爭形態發展趨勢,大力研究認知域作戰制勝機制,以理論創新帶動戰術創新,尋求優勢和機會。

強化認知域作戰攻防能力建構。 從個人到組織再到國家,認知域作戰的影響力跨越所有時空、所有要素,跨越不同作戰領域,影響整個作戰過程。 未來戰爭中,指揮官和戰鬥人員將面臨巨大的認知攻防挑戰。 奪取認知力的控制權,進而奪取戰場的全面控制權,將成為未來戰爭的控制關鍵點。 堅持需求驅動,加強認知域作戰攻防力量建設,建構攻防一體、平戰一體、多維一體的認知域作戰體系,建立健全演練評估體系機制,透過長期軍事實踐不斷提升能力。

加速認知領域高科技運算研發。 目前,隨著大數據、人工智慧、雲端運算等高科技技術的快速發展,開源資訊的取得變得更加便捷且有效率。 認知域運作越來越呈現啟動快、成本低、效率高的特性。 此外,隨著神經科學、腦科學等新興技術的悄悄發展,可以推斷,認知戰武器將在未來戰爭中日益豐富且廣泛應用。 我們要緊跟時代發展,事先規劃設計,維戈大力發展以搶佔認知優勢為導向的尖端技術,推動認知域作戰理念和方法更新,搶佔未來戰爭主動權。

外文音譯:

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.

中國軍事 資料來源: 資料來源:中國軍事網-解放軍報 作者:趙全紅

http://www.81.cn/ll_208543/10170888.html

中國軍隊從“網路戰”到“馬賽克戰”

Chinese Military From “Cyber Warfare” to “Mosaic Warfare”

繁體中文原文:

理論是行動的先導。 加強作戰理念創新、推動作戰指導創新一直是世界各國軍隊培養軍事優勢的重要途徑。 近年來,美軍先後提出「網路戰」、「馬賽克戰」等前線作戰理論,以實現作戰模式的「生產關係」能夠更適應「生產力」的發展的作戰能力。 透過這兩種作戰理論的比較分析,世人可以一窺美軍作戰能力建設思維的變化,特別是對「馬賽克戰」制勝機制的認識,從而有的放矢,找到有效的把關。和餘額。

● 從威脅反應到戰爭設計—

積極塑造並推動作戰能力提升

「基於威脅」或「基於能力」是軍事作戰能力建構的兩種基本方式。 「威脅為本」體現需求牽引,著力解決近中期實際問題,是軍隊作戰能力建構應遵循的基本法則; 「能力為本」體現目標牽引,瞄準未來戰略任務,以新作戰理論支撐戰略理念,是軍事行動的關鍵。 這樣,才能實現能力的創新與超越。 從「網路戰」到「馬賽克戰」的發展,體現了上述兩種方式內在規律的差異和演變,也體現了近年來美軍推進作戰能力建設的思路和理念的變化。

觀念開始改變。 網路空間最初是為了解決人類的交流需求而創建的。 後來逐漸演變為獨立於陸、海、空、天的新作戰域。 由此衍生出以爭奪網路空間主導權為核心的「網路空間」。 相較之下,「馬賽克戰」是美軍為維持戰略優勢、直接針對競爭對手而主動研發設計的新作戰理念。其形成過程體現了需求驅動與能力驅動相結合、戰略性、主動性、牽引力更加突出。

技術應用新思路。 「網路戰」強調發展新一代技術來支持作戰理念的轉變和實施。 《馬賽克戰》突破了這個模式,並不過度強調新一代裝備技術的研發。 更注重軍民共性技術的快速轉化和成熟技術的漸進式迭代。 其基本想法是,依照叫車、眾籌開發等服務平台的應用理念,在現有裝備的基礎上,透過模組升級和智慧化改造,將各種作戰系統單元「鑲嵌」成單功能、可靈活組裝的單元。 、易於更換的“積木”或“像素”,建構動態協調、高度自主、無縫整合的作戰系統,體現新技術驅動的概念。

路徑開發新設計。 「網路戰」是網路空間的一個伴隨概念。 網路空間發展到哪裡,「網路戰」就會隨之而來。 一般來說,我們在進行「主觀」概念設計之前,先考慮「客觀」物質條件。 ,對路徑發展有很強的依賴。 「馬賽克戰」首先從「主觀」演變為「客觀」。 透過開發能夠動態調整職能結構的部隊設計模型,能夠適應不同的作戰需求和戰場環境的變化。

可見,與以往的「網路戰」等作戰概念相比,「馬賽克戰」目標更明確、技術更成熟、路徑更可靠,體現了美軍積極塑造的思維轉變。

● 從網路中心到決策中心—

群體智慧實現系統能量優化釋放

人工智慧技術是資訊時代的關鍵變量,也是「馬賽克戰」體系發展的核心增量。 “網路戰”強調“網路中心”,而“馬賽克戰”緊緊圍繞著人工智慧技術核心,將制勝關鍵從“網路中心”調整為“決策中心”,將作戰系統架構從“從系統級到平台級的聯盟轉變為功能級、要素級的融合,尋求在網路能量充分匯聚的前提下,利用群體智慧技術實現系統能量的最佳化釋放,賦予網路新的內涵。智慧戰爭的致勝機制

時代。

用“快”控制“慢”,在認知上佔上風。 未來戰爭中,戰場情勢瞬息萬變,時間元素的權重將持續上升。 「快」與「慢」可以產生近乎尺寸縮小的戰鬥打擊效果。 「馬賽克戰」利用資料資訊技術與人工智慧技術,提升己方「OODA」循環的單循環決策速度,擴大並行決策的廣度,降低群循環決策的粒度,加快系統運作進度,整體打造領先一步的典範。 「先發制人」的姿態旨在牢牢掌控戰場認知決策的主導地位。

用“低”控“高”,累積成本優勢。 與追求高端武器平台的傳統作戰概念不同,「馬賽克戰」著重於利用人工智慧技術挖掘現有武器平台和作戰資源的潛力並提高效率。 透過在眾多中低階武器平台上載入並運行智慧演算法和特定功能模組,可以實現與高階武器平台相媲美的作戰性能。 這整體提高了武器平台投入產出的成本效益,進而累積成本優勢。

以“散”控“聚”,求可持續生存。 「馬賽克戰」強調運用去中心化思想和非對稱制衡,利用開放的系統架構,在各種有人/無人平台上去中心化配置偵察、定位、通信、打擊等各種功能,實現力量的分佈式部署。 同時利用智慧演算法,提升各平台的自組織、自協調、獨立攻擊能力,進而實現集中火力。 當部分作戰平台被消滅、打亂或剝離時,整個作戰體系仍能正常運行,進而增強部隊集群的戰場生存能力。

用“動”控“靜”,提高系統靈活性。 「馬賽克戰」強調進一步突破各作戰領域的障礙。 透過將不同作戰域的固定“殺傷鏈”變成動態可重構的“殺傷網”,將“OODA”大環拆解為小環,將單環分化為多環。 根據作戰流程和作戰需求的變化,依靠智慧組網,實現作戰力量的動態分割、動態部署、動態組合。 這樣,一方面可以增強作戰系統的彈性和適應性; 另一方面,它也可以抵消複雜網路的節點聚合效應,使對手很難找到關鍵節點來擊敗自己的系統。

「馬賽克戰爭」為智慧戰爭提供了參考原型。 但同時,「馬賽克戰爭」作為一種理想化的力量設計與運用框架,也需要與其密切相關的技術、條令、政策等支撐支撐。 距離完全實現還有很長的路要走。 與傳統戰爭相比,系統共存的局面將長期存在。

● 從要素整合到系統重組—

動態結構增強作戰系統靈活性

結構和關係常常決定功能和屬性。 「網路戰」與「馬賽克戰」建立在資訊時代相同的物質基礎上,遵循相同的演化範式,但係統建構的原理和效果不同。 「網路戰」所形成的架構可以靜態解構,而「馬賽克戰」則依照一定的建構規則動態組合功能單元,形成具有自組織和自適應特性的彈性架構,類似「動態黑盒子」。 常規手段難以追蹤和預測。 這種靈活的結構經常「湧現」新的能力,以增強和提高作戰系統的效率。

網路與雲端融合發展,使作戰空間和時間更具動態性和可塑性。 網際網路和雲端是資訊作戰系統運作的基礎環境。 它們重塑了傳統作戰中的情報、指揮、攻擊、支援等流程要素,同時衍生出新的作戰時空。 「網路戰」主要針對網路空間,其作戰時間和空間相對靜態。 「馬賽克戰」並不限於單一的作戰空間。 在資訊基礎設施網路隨雲而動、雲端網融合的發展趨勢下

無形空間和無形空間可以進一步鉸接,作戰空間和時間的界限更加靈活,作戰資源的配置更加靈活。 戰鬥架構更加動態。

數據跨域流動,使戰鬥控制更加無縫協調。 在指揮控制環節,「網路戰」著重於聯合作戰指揮機構對作戰單位的指揮控制,資料的跨域交換與流動主要集中在戰區戰場。 「馬賽克戰」將聯合作戰的水平進一步降低到戰術端。 透過戰術層面資料的獨立跨域交換和無縫流動,可以將各種資料孤島按需聚集成資料集群,從而產生顯著的「溢出」效應,使得資料的動態、離散、敏捷、並行的特性作戰指揮控制迴路更加明顯,更有利於實現各作戰單元按需敏捷連動、高效協同行動。

演算法穿透各個維度,讓系統運作更自主、更有效率。 演算法是人類意識在網路空間的映射,形成兩種基本形式:意圖轉化的編譯碼和知識轉化的神經網路。 在《網路戰》中,大量使用編譯程式碼,而神經網路僅在本地使用。 在「馬賽克戰爭」中,演算法拓展到塑造規則和提供引擎兩大關鍵功能,應用的廣度和深度更為凸顯。 塑造規則以編譯碼為主,神經網路為輔,建構「馬賽克戰」系統的流程架構與運作邏輯,為其不確定性、適應性和「突現」能力奠定結構基礎; 提供引擎主要整合智慧演算法模型,分送到邊緣要素進行運算,形成知識擴散效應,從而全面提升「馬賽克戰」系統的智慧自主作戰能力。

邊緣能量的獨立釋放,讓戰鬥方式更靈活多元。 邊緣是各種有人/無人作戰功能單元的抽像模型,也是系統能力「湧現」的直接來源。 在「網路戰」體系中,邊緣要素與上級和下級指揮控制流程緊密耦合,處於精確控制狀態。 在「馬賽克戰爭」系統中,邊緣要素的感知、互動、推理、決策能力大幅提升。 其「OODA」循環無需回溯至上級指揮機構,有利於支撐形成高低、有人/無人的分散組合。 優化的作戰集群形態可以賦予邊緣分子更多的自組織權威,顯著增強戰場對抗優勢。

可見,如果說「網路戰」被稱為精密的戰爭機器,那麼「馬賽克戰」則可以被視為一個能夠激發作戰能力動態增長的複雜「生態」。 網路雲、資料、演算法和邊緣設備產生的新技術變化促進了動態且複雜的「架構」的形成。 這種結構反過來又對要素、平台和系統進行反向調節,不斷湧現新的能力,對作戰系統的賦能和演進發揮重要作用。

● 從制度突破到複合對抗——

分析利弊,尋求有效制衡

「馬賽克戰」在某種程度上代表了未來聯合作戰的可能發展方向。 要充分研究掌握「馬賽克戰」制勝機制,將資訊通信領域塑造成為打破傳統戰爭時空界限的新領域,打造雲化作戰新理念,建構強大的資訊通訊領域新格局。國防資訊基礎設施保障能力。 突顯軍事資訊網路安全防禦能力,增強戰略戰役指揮機構運作的基礎支撐能力,不斷完善網路資訊體系。

另一方面,「馬賽克戰」理論的出現,使得傳統作戰手段難以透過搶先並控制有限的目標節點來達到毀點、斷環的系統破局效果。 但也應該看到,任何制度都有其固有的矛盾。 即便是看似“無懈可擊”的去中心化結構的“馬賽克戰爭”,依然能找到有效破解的方法。 例如,掌握系統的複雜性特徵,利用其相關性和依賴性,突顯通訊網路的功能抑制

建構網路和電力複合攻擊路徑,實現作戰系統各單元的拆解和隔離; 掌握其結構的耗散特性,利用其對外部資訊的依賴,凸顯資訊資料的偽裝性和誤導性,促使作戰系統轉變為資訊封閉、資訊過載等異常狀態; 掌握其群體自主特點,利用其對關鍵技術的依賴,凸顯與智慧演算法的對抗,降低效率,抑制各作戰單元的智慧驅動力; 抓住其功能非線性特點,利用其未知漏洞,突出戰場差異化打擊評估,以更高的效率、更快的速度探索和發現作戰系統中的不平衡點,尋找系統中的關鍵弱點進行突破。

(作者單位:61001部隊)

外文音譯:

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.

(Author’s unit: Unit 61001)

中國軍事資源:http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/jmsd/4894888.html

中國軍隊——揭開境外網路空間行動之謎

Chinese Military – Uncovering the Mysteries of Foreign Cyberspace Operations

原始中文國語:

隨著科學技術的不斷發展,戰爭形式已進入資訊化戰爭時代。 資訊已成為戰鬥力的主導要素。 雙方圍繞著資訊的收集、傳輸和處理展開了激烈的對抗。 網路空間是資料和資訊傳輸的通道。 現代作戰單位之間的橋樑。

美國軍方是第一個將網路空間軍事化的國家。 2008年,美國成立空軍網路司令部,將網路空間定義為整個電磁頻譜空間,將認知和實踐從狹隘的資訊域延伸到廣闊的網路域。 。 2018年1月,美國陸軍訓練與條令司令部(TRADOC)發布了《TP 525-8-6美國陸軍網路空間與電子戰作戰概念2025-2040》,描述了美國陸軍將如何在網路空間和電子戰中作戰。 在電磁頻譜中運行,以應對未來作戰環境的挑戰。 與其他傳統作戰領域相比,網路空間將對未來作戰產生哪些影響? 在未來一體化聯合作戰背景下,能為多域聯合作戰帶來哪些突破?

神秘-網路空間行動

第五大領域資訊化戰爭。 賽博空間一詞最早出現在1982年的加拿大科幻小說《全像玫瑰碎片》中,描述了網路與人類意識融合的賽博空間。 根據美國國防部軍事詞彙詞典,網路空間是資訊環境中的全球性領域,由獨立的資訊技術基礎設施網路組成,包括互聯網、電信網路、各種區域網路和電腦系統以及嵌入式處理器和控制器。 隨著網路技術的不斷發展,網路空間已從電腦網路擴展到不可見的電磁頻譜,即電磁環境中的實體場。 它不僅包括我們通常認識的電腦網絡,還包括使用各種電磁能量的所有物理系統。

此外,在現代戰爭中,網路空間是資訊戰的新領域。 已被美軍列為與陸、海、空、天同等重要、必須保持決定性優勢的五個領域之一。 涉及網路戰、資訊戰、電子戰、太空戰、指揮控制戰、C4ISR等領域。 它是超越傳統的陸、海、空、天四維戰鬥空間的第五維度戰鬥空間。 它既相對獨立又嵌入其他領域。 與傳統領域相比,網路空間具有邊界邊界模糊、覆蓋範圍廣、情勢複雜多變的特性。

網路空間作戰超越了時間和空間的限制。 由於電磁頻譜缺乏地理邊界和自然邊界,網路空間超越了地理邊界、時間和距離的限制,使得網路空間作戰幾乎可以在任何地方發生,跨越陸地、海洋、太空和空中作戰,將傳統的四種作戰方式融為一體。立體作戰空間領域,可瞬間對遠程目標進行攻擊。 由於資訊在網路空間的傳播速度接近光速,高速資訊傳輸將大幅提升作戰效率與能力,提供快速決策、指導作戰、達到預期作戰效果的能力。 更重要的是,根據作戰需要,在網路空間或透過網路空間實現軍事目標或軍事效果可以分為進攻性網路作戰和防禦性網路作戰兩種類型。

進攻性網路行動是指在網路空間預防、削弱、中斷、摧毀或欺騙敵方網絡,以確保己方在網路空間的行動自由。 其主要行動包括實施電子系統攻擊、電磁系統封鎖和攻擊、網路攻擊和基礎設施攻擊等。防禦性網路行動包括防禦、偵測、表徵、反擊和減輕網路空間威脅事件的活動,旨在保護美國國防部防禦網絡或其他友方網絡,維持被動和主動利用友方網路空間的能力,保護資料、網路和其他指定的系統能力。

網路空間電磁戰

戰略威懾,輿論制勝。 近年來,針對經濟、政治、軍事等目標的網路攻擊不斷增加。 由於具有規模大、隱蔽性好、攻擊基礎設施能力強等特點

網路攻擊已成為一些國家在政治衝突中的優勢。 優勢手段。 俄烏衝突期間,俄羅斯以網路空間為陣地,以無線電電子戰為輔助,切斷烏克蘭系統通訊,中斷烏克蘭指揮; 抵制輿論負面消息,發布正面消息; 它癱瘓了網路上的敵人。 利用敵方網站製造恐慌,然後配合部隊正面進攻,達到速勝的目的。

全球佈局,千里之外擒敵。 美國在建立以本國主導的網路空間安全框架的過程中,掌握了盟友的網路空間作戰能力,建立了全球軍事基地和網路空間互聯互通。 相關情報人員平時透過情報行動完成網路預設,例如利用網路等手段透過情報分析來監控和收集敵方網路資料。 透過網路預設,必要時可利用網路漏洞入侵敵方網路、控制系統、破壞資料等,實現「千里取敵性命」。 2010年7月,美國透過某種蠕蟲病毒入侵伊朗核電廠,並控制了其核心設備,大大拖延了伊朗的核計畫。

充分發揮非對稱作戰優勢,提高作戰效益。 「舒特」計畫是美國空軍為了壓制敵方防空能力而提出的。 它利用不對稱作戰理論來摧毀敵方的防空系統。 核心目標是入侵敵方通訊、雷達、電腦等網路電力系統。 戰爭中,「舒特」攻擊可以透過遠程無線電侵入敵方防空預警系統和通訊系統的電腦網絡,進而攻擊並癱瘓敵方防空系統,或攻擊敵方可用的電子系統和網路系統,突破敵人的網絡。 攔截,然後利用相應的專業算法(主要是“木馬”病毒)侵入敵方雷達或網絡系統,監聽或竊取相關信息,洩露敵方作戰計劃、部隊部署、武器裝備等重要信息,從而幫助調整己方的作戰計畫、作戰結構和武器配比,以最小的成本獲得最大的利益。

網路空間作戰的未來發展

各國日益重視,大力發展。 隨著各國意識的加深,發展網路能力、贏得網路戰爭已成為各國謀求軍事優勢、贏得未來戰爭的重要內容。 2015年,美軍根據「伊斯蘭國」組織成員在網路上發布的評論和照片,利用大數據分析和偵察定位,最終在22小時內摧毀了一個「伊斯蘭國」指揮所。 目前,美國已成立網路空間司令部,組成網路空間作戰部隊,深化作戰理論研究,初步形成網路空間作戰能力。 其他國家也開展了網路競賽。 為了加強網路空間作戰能力,法國成立了新的資訊系統安全局。 英國政府發布國家通訊安全戰略,宣布成立網路安全辦公室和網路安全行動中心。 日本建立了以電腦專家為主的網路戰部隊,顯示網路空間戰引起了越來越多國家的興趣。

融合多種技術,增強網路空間作戰能力。 隨著新技術的突破,大數據技術、5G技術、人工智慧技術可以應用於網路空間作戰。 大數據技術可以儲存大量數據、收集複雜類型的數據,並且可以快速計算並獲取有用的信息。 它可以加快網路空間戰爭各方面的執行速度並使其更加精準。 5G技術具有低時延、高傳輸、大容量的特點,使得網路空間戰爭在全球環境、多域協同作戰中更具威脅性。 此外,還可以利用人工智慧深度學習、推理等能力來模擬網路空間戰爭。 在這個過程中,可以發現自身武器系統的弱點並加以改進。 透過這些技術的深度融合,可以將網路空間打造為智慧化、高傳輸、高精度的網路環境,為未來資訊化聯合作戰打造智慧大腦。

並掌握未來經營的主動權。

有效推進聯合作戰。 利用跨域資訊化聯合作戰本質上是基於地理空間部署,建立穩定且有效率的網路空間資訊活動態勢,共同實現作戰目標的新型作戰形態。 聯合部隊有不同的資訊能力。 實現高度共享和深度融合,增強即時態勢感知,提高指揮效率,提高一體化戰鬥力。 網路能力不僅可以服務單一軍種或單位,還可以優先保障戰略級目標,高水準組織網路戰爭和各兵種作戰,規劃陸、海、空等網路作戰。空氣和空間維度。 戰鬥目標。

未來的戰爭將是智慧化、系統化的戰爭。 「聯合資訊環境」是實現「跨域協作」、打造「全球一體化作戰」能力的策略性舉措。 隨著科技的不斷改善與發展,網路空間作戰將成為核心作戰領域之一,將大幅提升未來系統作戰效能,為謀取資訊優勢、贏得戰爭提供重要支撐。

外文原版英文:

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.

2020 年 8 月 31 日 | 來源:人民網-軍事頻道

http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0831/c1011-3184888z.html

中國軍事設計與發展聚焦未來戰爭的作戰概念

Chinese Military Designs & Development for Operational Concepts Focusing on Future Warfare

原始國語(繁體):

自21世紀以來,隨著世界新軍事革命的深入,世界軍事強國提出了一系列新的作戰概念,並在戰爭實踐中不斷完善,導致戰爭加速演變。 隨著雲端運算、區塊鏈、人工智慧、大數據等資訊科技的快速發展以及在軍事領域的廣泛應用,人們認識戰爭的模式逐漸從總結實戰經驗轉變為研究判斷未來戰爭。 目前,作為軍事能力建構的源泉,作戰理念發展能力的強弱將直接影響戰爭的勝負。 特別是世界新軍事革命方興未艾,時刻呼喚作戰理論創新。 只有建立新的作戰理念,前瞻性地設計未來戰爭,才能贏得軍事鬥爭準備的主動權。

作戰理念從根本解決如何打仗

一流的軍隊設計戰爭,二流的軍隊應對戰爭,三流的軍隊跟隨戰爭。 所謂“真正的戰爭發生在戰爭之前”,就是在戰爭開始之前,戰爭的理論、風格、戰鬥方式就已經設計好了。 照設計打仗怎麼可能打不贏呢? 設計戰爭的關鍵是在認識戰爭特徵和規律的基礎上,設計和發展新的作戰理念,推動作戰方式和戰術創新,從根本上解決「如何打戰爭」。

在設計戰爭時,理論是第一位的。 近年來,美軍提出“網路中心戰”、“空海戰”、“混合戰”等新概念,俄軍提出“非核遏制戰略”、“戰略空天戰役”和“國家資訊安全主義”,體現了世界軍事強國正大力研究作戰理論,搶佔軍事制高點。 從某種程度上來說,作戰概念是作戰理論形成的「組織細胞」。 沒有完整的概念生成能力,就很難產生先進的理論。 當一種作戰理論提出後,需要發展相關的作戰概念,使作戰理論能夠具體“下沉”,更好地完善,轉化為軍事實踐。 在沒有作戰理論概念的情況下,作戰概念創新可以為作戰理論研究提供「原料」。 軍事領域是最不確定的領域,人們對戰爭的認知總是不斷演變。 然而,作戰理論的創新不能等到認識成熟之後才開始。 相反,需要在現有認識的基礎上積極發展和創新作戰理念,建構未來作戰圖景,探索未來制勝機制,指導和指導軍事實踐。 掌握戰爭主動權。 因此,作戰理念創新正在成為軍隊建設和發展的戰略支點和槓桿。

營運概念開發著重於設計核心營運概念。 核心作戰理念是作戰理念的核心與胚胎。 它體現了作戰的本質要求,蘊含著作戰理念成長的「基因」。 整個概念體係都是由此衍生發展出來的。 目前,對資訊化、智慧化戰爭制勝機制的認識逐漸清晰,戰爭設計的著力點應該集中到主要作戰理論和關鍵作戰理念的發展。

經營理念是經營思想的抽象表達。

「作戰概念」一詞源自美軍。 這是對未來如何戰鬥的描述。 日益成為推動軍隊建設發展的重要抓手。 美國陸軍訓練與條令指揮概念發展指南指出,作戰概念是一種概念、一種想法、一種整體理解和基於作戰環境中具體事件的推論。 它概述了最廣泛的意義和更具體的措施。上面描述了戰鬥是如何進行的。 美國海軍陸戰隊作戰發展司令部作戰發展和整合指令指出,作戰概念表達瞭如何打一場戰爭,用於描述未來的作戰場景以及如何利用軍事藝術和科學能力來應對未來的挑戰。 美國空軍作戰概念發展條令指出,作戰概念是戰爭理論層面的概念描述。 它實現了既定的營運理念和意圖

透過有序組織作戰能力和作戰任務。

綜上所述,作戰理念可以理解為對當前或未來具體作戰問題的作戰思路和行動方案的抽象理解。 一般來說,作戰構想包含三個部分:一是作戰問題的描述,即作戰構想的背景、作戰環境、作戰對手等;二是作戰構想的描述。 二是解決方案的描述,即概念內涵、應用場景、動作風格。 、制勝機制、能力特性及優勢等; 三是能力要求描述,即實施作戰理念所需的裝備技術、基本條件、實施手段等。 可見,作戰概念應具有針對性、科學性、適應性和可行性等特點,其內涵和外延會隨著戰略背景、軍事政策、威脅對手、時空環境、能力條件和作戰能力的變化而不斷調整。其他因素。

從某種意義上說,作戰理念實際上是作戰理論的一種過渡形式,其最終價值在於指導和拉動軍事實踐。 發展新作戰理念的目的和歸宿是挖掘和增強軍隊戰鬥力。 將作戰理念轉化為作戰條令、作戰方案,其價值才能充分發揮。

作戰理念創新驅動作戰方式變革

進入21世紀以來,世界軍事強國根據國家戰略要求,應對新威脅新挑戰,把發展新作戰理念作為軍事能力轉型的關鍵步驟,推動軍事力量變革。作戰風格,並尋求在未來戰場上獲得勝利的機會。 為了進一步加強軍事領導力,世界軍事強國正加速推出一系列新的作戰概念。

美軍積極抓住科技進步帶來的機遇,綜合運用新一代資訊科技、人工智慧技術、無人自主技術等尖端技術,提出馬賽克戰爭、多域作戰、分散式殺傷、決策作戰等。集中作戰、聯合全局指揮控制。 等一連串新的作戰概念,推動作戰思想、作戰方式、作戰空間、作戰體系發生根本性變革。

與美軍不同,俄軍在軍事實踐中實行作戰理念迭代創新。 近期,俄軍致力於推動聯合作戰能力建設,加速新型無人裝備研發部署,著力打造網路資訊化戰場優勢,不斷豐富傳統作戰理念內涵,與新時代融合發展。混合戰和心理戰等作戰概念。 用於指導戰爭實踐。

總體而言,近年來,世界軍事強國提出的新作戰理念正在導致作戰方式的深刻變化。 其能力、特徵和優勢主要體現在以下五個方面:一是無人作戰裝備,基於新作戰理念的無人裝備系統比重顯著增加,有人與無人協同作戰成為主要作戰方式之一。風格,形成利用無人系統控制有人部隊的優勢。 其次,部署方式是去中心化的。 基於新作戰概念的兵力部署是分散式的、系統間互聯的、具有互通能力的,形成單獨系統和組合的優勢; 第三,殺傷網絡複雜。 基於新作戰理念的殺傷網絡,功能更加多元。 單一系統可以執行多種任務,其故障對作戰系統影響較大。 規模小,形成多用控制單單的優勢; 四是反應時間敏捷,新作戰概念強調快速決策,出其不意,形成以快慢的優勢; 五是作戰領域多維度,新作戰理念更重視多域連動,將戰場從傳統的陸、海、空拓展到電磁、網路、認知領域,形成無形、有形的優勢。

營運理念開發應堅持系統化設計思路

以營運理念指導建設

f軍事力量是世界軍事強國的普遍做法。 相較而言,美軍擁有較為完善的作戰概念發展機制,建構了較為完整的作戰概念發展體系,由概念類型、組織結構、規範標準、支撐手段等組成。

從概念類型來看,美軍作戰概念基本上可分為三類:一是各軍種主導下發展的一系列作戰概念。 他們主要從本軍種角度出發,研究潛在敵人和未來戰場,重新定義作戰方式,尋求勝利。 新方法。 二是參謀長聯席會議領導下所發展的一系列聯合作戰概念,主要由頂層概念、作戰概念、支撐概念三個層次組成。 第三類是學術界、智庫等發展出來的操作概念,這類操作概念的數量雖然沒有前兩類那麼多,但仍是操作概念體系的重要組成部分。 透過此體系,美軍將大軍事戰略透過作戰理念層層落實到部隊的各項作戰行動、各項作戰能力、各項武器裝備性能中,指導聯合部隊和各軍兵種建設。

在組織架構上,以聯合作戰理念的發展為例,美軍建立了由五類組織組成的工作體系。 一是聯合概念工作小組,主要職責是檢視概念大綱和概念發展的整體問題; 二是聯合概念指導委員會,主要職責是監督指導概念發展計畫; 三是核心編寫團隊,主要職責是編制概念大綱,將概念中原有的概念轉化為聯合可操作的概念; 四是概念研發團隊,主要職責是提供可操作的概念開發方法和方案; 五是獨立紅隊,主要職責是獨立評估,判斷概念的嚴謹性和科學性。

在規範標準方面,對於聯合作戰理念的發展,美軍有完整的製度體系約束和指導,將概念發展規範化、規範化、程序化,這主要體現在參謀長聯席會議主席的一系列指令和聯合出版物中。 例如,《聯合概念制定和實施指南》旨在建立聯合概念制定的治理結構,明確聯合作戰概念規劃、執行和評估的框架,推動聯合作戰概念的實施; 「聯合條令準備流程」旨在製定聯合條令準備流程,並為將作戰概念轉化為作戰條令提供明確的流程架構。

從支援手段來看,營運概念的設計、開發和驗證是一個系統工程,離不開各種開發工具和手段的支援。 例如,DODAF2.0模型、IDEFO模型、SYSML建模語言等工具可以為戰鬥概念設計者提供標準化的結構化分析模型和邏輯描述模型; 基於模型的系統工程方法可以為作戰概念設計者和評估驗證者提供作戰概念中裝備要素的能力模型,用於設計和建構作戰概念架構。 美軍聯合作戰概念開發採用基於網路的數位軟體,具有很強的互聯能力。 參與開發的各機構可即時分享訊息,提高開發效率。

營運理念的成熟發展需要多方的配合

制定作戰概念是一項多學科、多領域的工作,涉及軍事學、哲學、運籌學、系統科學等許多領域。 它需要多方合作,確保在理論層面上具有先進性、前瞻性,在實踐層面上具有適用性和可行性。

建立小核心、大外圍的研究團隊。 主導制定作戰理念的部門要充分發揮主導作用,統籌協調與調度研究工作; 建立聯合研發團隊,充分發揮群體智慧與作用

d 廣泛獲取各方對作戰理念研究的新思路、新思路。 方法與新視角; 成立跨領域、跨部門的專家委員會,多角度監督、審查、指導相關工作。

形成多部門連動工作機制。 為了確保各部門之間溝通順暢、有效率運轉,首先要明確各自的任務與職責。 例如,概念發起部門負責總體規劃和實施,實驗室負責技術驗證,工業部門負責裝備研發,作戰部隊負責實戰測試。 其次,要製定相關規範文件,確保各項工作有秩序地進行,並為可操作理念的研發提供製度支撐。 最後,要建立需求牽引機制、協同研究機制、迭代回饋機制等,打通作戰概念從研發到實際運用的環節。

促進理論與實務的有機結合。 只有透過「設計研究-推演驗證-實戰測試」的循環迭代,才能逐步調整、優化、完善作戰理念,帶動戰爭理論的發展。 因此,操作理念的發展必須特別注重理論創新與實際應用的結合。 透過理論與實踐的相互驅動,才能達到引領新一代優質作戰能力生成的根本目的。 具體方法包括將成熟的作戰理念及時納入作戰條令,編寫相應的訓練大綱或教材,逐步向部隊推廣; 組織相關演練或試驗,在接近實戰的條件下檢驗作戰理念的成熟度和可行性。 自然,發現問題並解決問題; 以作戰理念確定的能力指標作為裝備需求論證的參考,帶動裝備技術發展,促進作戰能力提升。

新時代科學技術快速發展,為軍事能力建構帶來許多新的機會與挑戰。 發展新的作戰概念,有利於敏銳抓住科技進步帶來的軍事機遇,積極應對科技發展帶來的威脅和挑戰,及時掌握戰爭形態演變的方向和規律,為戰爭形態的演變提供指導。引領未來戰爭風格,抓住勝利機會。 重要的支持。 目前,國際安全情勢複雜多變。 打贏未來資訊化戰爭,需要把作戰理念發展作為國防和軍隊建設的抓手,積極開展軍事技術創新,推動武器裝備升級換代,實現跨越式發展,從而引領新時代。 軍事革命趨勢。

(作者單位:中國航太科工集團第二研究院)

現代外語英語翻譯:

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)

中國軍事原文來源:http://www.81.cn/gfbmap/content/2022-06/22/content_318888.htm

中國探索制勝認知作戰的軍事設計

Chinese Military Designs for Exploring Winning Cognitive Operations

國語原版:

編按

從最新的局部戰爭實踐來看,認知域作戰已成為深刻影響戰爭走向的重要變因。 認知域作戰中,各方圍繞輿論掌控、資訊引導、認知塑造等展開激烈爭奪,不僅有實體對抗,更有來自虛擬空間的較量,展現出數位時代「技術+」的顯著特徵。 探尋認知域作戰制勝之道,對於掌控認知域作戰主動權、打贏未來戰爭具有重要的現實意義。

奪取控腦權成為認知域作戰終極目標

大腦是一切思考活動的物質基礎,是影響和控制人類作出行為改變的指揮中樞,而感覺、知覺和意識則構成了大腦反映世界的三個面向。 如何贏得控腦權,日益成為交戰各方在認知域作戰領域研究與關注的重點。

積極爭奪感覺控制權。 感覺是客觀事物的特性在人腦中引起的反應,是形成各種複雜心理過程的基礎。 隨著腦科學、分子生物學、神經化學等學科的快速發展,人類開始逐步獲得在生理層面對大腦進行幹預和控制的能力。 根據國外實驗結果顯示,吸入催產素會讓人更信任他人,更能產生共感,進而影響一個人的親社會性和道德表現。 未來作戰,交戰各方透過利用聲光電等物理刺激,或化學藥物作用於目標對象的聽覺、視覺、嗅覺等感覺系統,甚至將上述影響直接作用於人的腦部,在目標對像大腦中激發出 特定的情緒反應,可實現對其在生理層面的認知影響和控制。

有效爭奪知覺抑制權。 知覺是在感覺基礎上形成的,反映客觀事物的整體形象和表面連結的心理過程。 其中,個體的態度、動機、興趣,以及過去的經驗和未來的預期,是影響個體對知覺目標知覺的關鍵變項。 戰時,交戰各方透過瞄準目標對象心理上的疑點、弱點、需求點,抓住有利時機,借助特定的訊息,對目標對象的知覺進行情感影響、心智誘導或攻心瓦解,以增加目標對象對 戰爭風險的預期,削弱其抵抗意志和作戰決心,從而實現小戰、少戰甚至不戰而屈人之兵的目的。

全面爭奪意識塑造權。 意識是透過感覺、知覺、思考等心理過程實現的,表現為知、情、意的統一。 戰爭的根本目的是迫使敵人屈服。 從古今中外的戰爭實踐看,為了贏得意識塑造權,交戰各方會盡其所能,調用一切可以調用的軍事力量,綜合運用政治、經濟、文化、外交等手段,對敵人實施政治瓦解、外交 孤立、輿論引導、法理宣示,引發目標對象個體或群體的理性思辨、倫理共鳴或價值認同,進而改變其世界觀、人生觀、價值觀,形成較為穩定長遠的認知影響或控制,從而實現「全勝 」的目的。

掌權控制資訊權成為認知域作戰關鍵

認知域作戰的武器彈藥是訊息,掌握資訊的生成、辨識、取得、傳播、回饋的主動權,是贏得認知域戰場優勢的關鍵。

主動實施強烈心理刺激,助推訊息滲透。 現代戰爭對抗激烈複雜,各種對抗要素在多維多域立體展開,戰機稍縱即逝。 作用於認知域的力量與手段必須緊跟戰場態勢發展變化,廣泛藉助閾下訊息植入、聲光電磁心理滋擾損傷、非接觸式情緒控制等強烈心理刺激手段,主動出擊,以誘導目標 對象的情感、意志、思想、信念等出現混亂、迷惘或激變,進而達成對目標對象認知系統控制與影響的目的。

廣泛運用智慧演算法,實現精準推送。 隨著網路滲入人類生活各個層面,所有人都會在網路上留下大量資料資訊。 戰時,交戰各方會藉助大數據、雲端運算、物聯網、區塊鏈等現代資訊技術,對目標對象的社交數據、軌跡數據、金融數據、網購記錄、搜尋記錄、個人通訊記錄等網路數據 資訊進行深度挖掘關聯,實現對目標對象的“認知畫像”,系統分析出目標對象的興趣偏好、行為趨勢、人際關係以及價值取向,從而立體掌握相關個體或特定群體的特徵。 而後藉助智慧演算法技術,將個人化客製化認知訊息向目標對象實施精準推送,進而影響目標對象對戰爭的態度、情感以及價值判斷,進而助推己方作戰目的與政治意圖的實現。

有效聚合社會支持系統,實現整體連結。 社會支持系統,是一個人在自己的社會關係網絡中所能獲得的、來自他人的物質和精神上的幫助和支援,是影響和決定個體獲得情感依賴和認知走向的關鍵因素。 可以說,認知域作戰能否成功,獲得目標對象社會支持系統的支持和協助至關重要。 借助現代資訊技術,可以有效關聯到目標對象的親人、朋友、同學、合作夥伴等特定社會關係人,透過對上述關係人施加針對性影響,取得對方的理解、支持和信任,動員特定關係人對 目標對象施加影響,更能贏得目標對象的信任與接納,更容易使目標對象產生認知改變,進而達成對目標對象的認知影響與控制的目的。

虛擬空間成為認知域作戰主戰場

在人類虛擬空間不斷拓展的趨勢下,虛擬空間正成為現代戰爭尤其是認知域作戰的主戰場,某種程度上決定未來戰爭的勝負。

新興傳播形態成為認知域作戰新手段。 隨著行動互聯技術的不斷發展,以社群媒體等為代表的新興傳播形態逐步成為認知對抗的全新平台和主流陣地。 從近幾場局部戰爭來看,社群媒體的地位作用越來越突出,交戰各方透過借助個人部落格、論壇等平台即時發布戰場圖文、錄影和評論跟帖,不僅成為全球行動網媒終端 的共議話題,也成為全球不同國家、不同勢力派別價值認知賽局的主陣。 社群媒體等新興傳播形態以其獨特的去中心化及互動性特點,打破了傳統傳播方式中的資訊壟斷與資訊控制,催生了眾多的產品樣態,在滿足人們資訊需求的同時,也在 不知不覺中改變人們的認知。 可以預見,未來認知域作戰中,社群媒體的地位角色將會越來越突出。

網路空間成為認知域作戰新空間。 在資訊化智慧化條件下,網路技術的門檻大大降低,全球即時觀戰成為可能。 現代戰爭已從電視時代的“起居室戰爭”,發展成今天全媒體時代的“掌上戰爭”。 網路直播比任何形式的戰地報道都更直觀更豐富,「全球共時性」成為突出的特點。 透過網路直播,交戰雙方激戰的影片、畫面和眾多燒毀的坦克、裝甲車,以及被戰火毀壞的家園、逃離家園的難民都可以直觀地呈現出來。 人們可以透過網路看到一個個具體的平民、雙方戰士的微觀狀態,戰場的「透明化」讓任何試圖掩蓋真相的努力和不實的虛假陳述變得愈來愈困難。 但另一方面,智慧語音克隆、視頻人像模擬替換等技術的出現,讓人們看到的不一定“誠如所見”,聽到的也不一定“真如所聽”,網絡直播下的認知 域作戰增添了更多可能和想像的空間。

智慧化網路軍團成為認知域作戰新生力量。 資訊網路的發展突破了人際溝通的真實性限制,我們難以確定網路另一端是不是真實存在的人。 基於大規模互動的需要,智慧化、自動化、規模化的網路空間機器人正異軍突起,它們廣泛活躍於網路空間的各個角落。 這些智慧化網路軍團具備智慧辨識、智慧應答甚至類腦思考的能力,並且不知疲憊、全時無休,智慧化網路軍團正成為未來認知域作戰的重要力量。 從當前相關技術發展趨勢來看,世界各主要國家甚至商業組織,正在把目光投向網路機器人在群組滲透、直播跟評、塑造輿論態勢、管控網路危機等方面的潛力前景,在網路智慧機器人柔性引導 技術群自動取得、自動培育和群組滲透等關鍵技術上加強研發力度,透過發現並有效利用網路使用者行為規律,為輿論引導、認知塑造、行為導控提供智慧、高效的技術支援。

現代外語:

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.

中國軍事原文來源:http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2022-09/01/content_323888.htm

國軍認知戰作戰節奏-認知域作戰特徵及發展趨勢分析

The Chinese Military Cognitive Warfare Operational Battle Rhythm with an Analysis of the Characteristics and Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations

原始中文國語:

認知域作戰是以人的意志、信念、思維、心理等為直接作戰對象,通過改變對手認知,進而影響其決策和行動。進入信息化智能化戰爭時代,認知域作戰已經成為大國博弈的重要樣式,各方都力圖以相對可控的方式達成政治目的。洞察把握認知域作戰特點及發展趨勢,對於打贏未來戰爭,具有緊迫而重要的現實意義。

當前,認知域已經作為獨立一域登上戰爭舞台,日益成為大國博弈的常斗之域、必爭之地、勝戰砝碼。分析認知域作戰特點及發展趨勢,至少體現為以下八個方面。

認知域是軍事優勢轉化為政治勝勢的關鍵域

軍事對抗,表面上看是雙方硬實力的對抗,深層次看不管戰爭是什麼性質、出於何種目的,終歸是人的意志的較量。勝利的關鍵是將己方意志強加給受眾的能力。只要剝奪、擊潰了敵人的戰爭意志,就意味著贏得了戰爭。認知域作戰,以人的意志、精神、心理等為對抗目標,增強己方意志的同時削弱敵方的意志,進而達成攻心奪志的政治目的。從這個意義上講,認知域是軍事優勢轉化為政治勝勢的關鍵域。隨著戰爭形態加速向智能化演進,認知質量優勢帶來決策行動優勢,不僅可在道義、法理上佔據制高點,塑造正義合法的有利態勢,還可通過混合戰爭、綜合博弈手段,實現小戰甚至不戰而勝的目的。尤其是大國競爭背景下戰爭成本高昂,各方都希望通過加大認知域爭奪力度,以“人道”且“經濟”的形式,迫使對手知難而退。

通過改變對手認知,可改變其決策和行動

實施認知攻擊的目的,就是用一只“看不見的手”操控對手意志,讓對手感到“我不能”“我不敢”,繼而達到“我不想”的效果。外軍實踐表明,對人的意志、信念、思維、心理實施認知攻擊,可以是長期的文化植入,可以是“信息海洋+捂嘴封聲”式的信息壓制,可以是先入為主、搶先發聲的主動塑造,也可以利用歷史積怨挑動矛盾爆發。當前,信息技術、人工智能技術、媒體技術強化了對認知域的直接作用,利用智能生成軟件,可制造大量認知“彈藥”,精准作用於作戰目標的認知層,直接將“意志強加於對手”,快速改變戰略態勢。展望信息化智能化戰場,態勢感知力量和平台廣泛分布於陸海空天網等作戰域,籌劃、決策、控制等認知行為主導各作戰域行動,尤其是未來智能化戰爭中人機混合的認知優勢將主導戰場,可以通過認知干擾、認知混淆、認知阻斷等手段,制造戰爭認知“迷霧”,誘使對手誤判態勢,做出錯誤決策和行動。

認知域作戰是全時攻防、全員覆蓋、全程使用、全域塑造、全政府行動

認知域作戰呈現出全方位、多層次、超時空、跨領域等特點,模糊了戰時和平時、前方和後方的界限,跨越了戰場和國界,超出了單純的軍事領域,廣泛滲透於政治、經濟、外交等各個社會領域,表現為“五全”特征。全時攻防,沒有平時戰時之分,沒有前方後方之別,表現為全時在線、全時在戰。全員覆蓋,任何人甚至包括智能機器人,都可能成為認知域作戰的目標對象。全程使用,貫穿聯合作戰的戰前戰中戰後,聯合軍事行動未展開,認知塑勢行動已開始,並且伴隨軍事行動而行,不隨軍事行動停而停。全域塑造,認知塑造貫穿戰略、戰役、戰術各層,作用范圍覆蓋陸海空天網各域,跨域賦能,對全域行動都有影響。全政府行動,認知塑造天然具有戰略性,需要跨部門、跨領域、跨軍地、跨層級一致協調行動,以求達到最佳傳播效果。

關鍵是奪控行動或活動的性質定義權、過程主導權、結局評判權

認知博弈斗爭,涉及多個對抗方,看似紛繁復雜,關鍵是圍繞認知域的“三權”展開爭奪。其一,爭奪事件性質定義權。即這個事件該怎麼看,是正義的還是非正義的,是合法的還是非法的。通常采取先發制人搶先定義、建群結盟強行定義、信息壓制單方定義、設置議題套用定義等,引導塑造民眾形成定性認知。其二,爭奪事件過程主導權。即這事該怎麼干、不該怎麼干,誰做的是對的、誰做的是錯的,通常采取設局布阱等方式,試圖按照己方所期望出現的狀態,主導目標事件發展方向、快慢、暫停、繼續與終結。其三,爭奪事件結局評判權。即對這事該怎麼評,誰是獲利方、誰是受損方,誰是眼前的失利者、誰是長遠的受損者,等等。各方都力圖通過掌控事件結局的評判權,放大於己有利之處、放大於敵不利之處,目的是利用事件延伸效應,持續傷敵利己。

道義和法理是各方爭奪的焦點

軍事行動歷來講究“師出有名”。雖然戰爭形態加速演變,但是戰爭從屬於政治的本質屬性不會改變;戰爭性質和人心向背,仍是影響戰爭勝負的關鍵因素。認知域戰場上,佔據了政治、道義、法理的制高點,就能夠贏得民心、道義支持,營造得道多助的輿論氛圍,進而掌握制敵先機。每次戰爭或者沖突,無論是強者還是弱者,無論是進攻方防守方還是第三方,各方都會全力搶佔認知主導權、輿論主動權,千方百計用道義包裝自己、注重宣示正義立場,設法為戰爭定性、為行動正名,以消除阻力、增加助力,塑造以“有道”伐“無道”的有利態勢。戰爭雙方實力對比不同,瞄准佔據道義法理制高點進行的認知對抗方式也會不同。近幾場戰爭表明,當一方軟硬實力均很強大時,即軍事實力強、盟友伙伴眾多、國際話語權佔有率大,常常高調宣戰;當軍事行動有可能引發連鎖反應時,則常常模糊處理“戰”的提法。

信息是認知攻防的基本“彈藥”

網絡信息時代,人類交流方式持續發生復雜深刻變化。現場交互交往逐漸讓位於網絡在線連線,一些大型社交平台成為認知博弈斗爭的主陣地、影響民眾認知的主渠道,以信息為彈藥進行國際網絡封鎖權、話語控制權爭奪成為當今認知對抗的主要行動之一。在這些平台上,各種短視頻成為公眾了解戰況的“第一現場”,信息比炮彈跑得快。圍繞平台的使用與封鎖、主導與規制成為認知域作戰爭奪的焦點,各方努力通過操控社交平台來傳播、放大己方宣傳,聲討、壓制對方宣傳,形成“我說的多、你說的少”“我說的對、你說的錯”“只能我說、不讓你說”的局面。民眾作為大型社交平台的使用者,在“聽”與“說”甚至“做”的過程中,受別人影響,也影響別人,不知不覺地成為幕後推手的代理人和攻擊道具。

軍事行動對認知塑造具有關鍵支撐作用

人類戰爭史表明,兵戰永遠是政治較量的基礎支撐,心戰則是兵戰的效能倍增器。戰場上拿不回來的東西,不能指望在談判桌上拿回來,更不能指望在輿論場上拿回來。現代戰爭中,認知傳播行動總是與聯合軍事行動如影隨形,心戰與兵戰互相影響、互為支撐,兵戰心戰化和心戰兵戰化趨勢更為明顯。從戰爭實踐看,沒有軍事實力是萬萬不能的,但僅有軍事行動又不是萬能的。戰場上的多次勝利,並不是奪取戰爭勝利的充分條件。越南戰爭中,美雖“贏得了每次戰斗,卻輸掉了整個戰爭”。21世紀初,美國連續打的伊拉克戰爭、阿富汗戰爭,贏得了戰場勝利,也沒有贏得政治勝勢。同樣的道理,軍事上的勝勢不等於贏得輿論上的強勢,贏得戰場勝利也不意味著贏得戰略的勝利。現代戰爭中,兩類人員的作用越來越大,一類人員通過編寫成千上萬行代碼謀勝,一類人員通過編寫成千上萬條信息謀勝。這兩類人員數質量都佔優的一方,取勝的概率往往就大。

認知對抗技術越來越直接運用於戰爭

以往戰爭中,對認知域的影響和作用,主要是通過物理域的大量毀傷行動,逐級逐層傳遞到認知域。隨著信息通信、人工智能、生物交叉、腦科學等技術的發展和突破,新的認知戰工具和技術直接瞄准軍事人員。認知對抗不僅使用傳統的信息戰武器,而且還使用以大腦為作戰目標的神經武器庫。屆時,機器將可以讀懂人腦,人腦也將能夠直接控制機器,智能指控系統可以直接提供戰場態勢和決策輔助,逼真的認知彈藥和精准的受眾投放將極大增強社會影響效果。認知對抗技術越來越直接運用於戰爭,原來信息化所隱含的間接認知,正逐步轉變為直接對人的認知進行影響和控制。可以說,先進科技的支撐,使認知域作戰通過構建現代網絡架構、開發數據可視化平台,快速了解信息環境並有效影響目標人群,可以更加直接高效地達成政治目的。

外國人英文原版:

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.

中國軍事參考:http://www.81.cn/ll_208543/10178888.html

中國軍方:認知域作戰是語言對抗新主戰場

Chinese Military: Cognitive domain operations are the new main battlefield for language confrontation

國語原版:

認知域作戰指的是以現代認知理論和科學為指導,調用輿論、心理、法律等多域手段,運用現代網絡、傳媒、文字、圖片、視頻、數位等多維技術,進行輿論宣傳、心理 攻防、人心爭取、信心顛覆、信仰影響、思維爭奪以及意識形態鬥爭的重要形式,意在爭奪人們在思維、信仰、價值觀、個人態度、情感、認同與評判傾向方面主動權。 認知域作戰是傳統輿論戰、心理戰、法律戰及貿易戰、外交戰、科技戰、思想戰等多域戰的複合集合體。

目前,認知域作戰已成為國家間進行軍事鬥爭和其他領域鬥爭的重要依托,認知域目標驅動的語言對抗已成為認知域作戰的重要形式,值得高度關注。

語言對抗針對作戰對象施加影響力的新領域

認知域作戰是當代認知科學研究發展的伴隨結果,是人們積極探索大腦認知活動獲得對大腦更為複雜更為抽象更為透徹的理解後產生的一種新興作戰領域,更是語言對抗 以受眾大腦的高階深層隱性活動為作用對象的高端影響形式。 不管是從資訊作用的對象、資訊的生產者、資訊內容本身或資訊的管道,認知域作戰都無不貫穿了認知的特點,自始至終都突顯從認知層面開展行動。

從訊息的接受對象來說,這個認知針對的是對手受眾大腦深層的認知面,包括其民眾、軍隊、軍事指揮員或者重要領導、政界商界的重要人物,甚至直接包括對方國家領導人或者 軍隊的特定重要將領等,也可以是特定的人群或民眾。 它可以涉及個人或群體的認知偏好、認知短板、認知習慣、認知偏誤、認知迷思;也可以是個人和群體的信念、價值觀念、政治認同、民族認同、社會和文化認同 與情感態度。

從資訊的投放者和內容來說,它應該是注入了資訊生產者的認知設計和安排,這個包括文本的獨特認知性,例如文本的話語模式、文本的敘事模式、事物的觀察視角、 敘事的認知焦點與深度、語句的組織形式、語句的價值觀念等傾向性、語句的概念的對方可接受性等。

從訊息傳達和傳播的管道來說,文字的形式更加貼近多媒體多模態形式,更加貼近網路空間的需要,更加貼近當代智慧型手機的優勢,更加貼近當下新興媒體時代的特點,也就是更加符合受眾 接受的認知特徵認知習慣和認知傾向。 文本的傳播形式充分考慮國際傳播中的認知效果,特別是跨文化、跨語言、跨媒體、跨群體的認知傳播。 如此,文本將會從認知層面,更好地對受眾施加影響力。

語言對抗應對作戰樣式變革生成新戰法

縱觀人類歷史,我們不難發現,軍事鬥爭的樣式一直在不斷變化。 從最初的使用冷兵器的體力纏鬥發展成為熱兵器機械力量的較量,又發展成為高科技戰爭條件下的信息化能力的製衡與反制衡,近年來又向著智能化無人化方向的智能決策 比拼發展,每一次改變都帶來深刻的戰法變化。 當下的機械化資訊化智能化的共處過渡階段,人們不僅重視戰場的物理域和資訊域主導權的爭奪,更重視影響戰爭主體-人的認知域的掌控,也就是作戰雙方人員的思維方式 、認知模式與風格、價值觀念、情緒態度、文化模型、溝通模式、心理強弱項、認知偏好、文化與知識圖譜、意識形態認同等領域的競爭。 後者涉及社會人員和社會存在的基本態勢,也就是認知域作戰施加影響的新興領域,其戰法有著強烈的特殊性。

議題靈活機動性:認知域作戰可挑選認知域的諸多議題,進行靈活機動的作戰行動。 議題根據當下的情況與需要,既可以選擇涉及較為宏觀的戰略層面(如對方全社會的意識形態與制度等),也可以選擇中觀的戰役層面(如對方社會局部領域或方向的社會問題: 社會福利政策或環境保護政策等),也可以選擇涉及社會中非常微觀的戰術問題(如某個人、某個特定事件所折射出的社會的非公平、非正義、非美好的一面)。 宏觀、中觀、微觀的認知域問題相互連結、相互轉化,很有可能一個微觀的議題也會成為一個宏觀的重大策略性議題。 而問題的提出要視與整個軍事行動的關係,要使認知域作戰服從全局的作戰行動,服務於宏觀的政治、外交大局的需要。 更重要的是,議題要準備在平時,要把各種議題的資料收集在平時,特別是要關注現實社會中的各種重要資料。 一旦需要,這些數據就可以迅速轉變為射向敵方認知域的箭頭、子彈、砲彈,甚至成為影響全局的戰略性武器。

作戰層次可控性:認知作戰其重要的設計是,在作戰的層面上,是整體可以控制的,也是可以調控的,可以根據情勢的變化,做出相應的升級或降維。 如果需要戰略層面的,指揮人員可以開通戰略層面的設計和力量投入;如果需要戰役級別的,也可以控制在相應戰役層面;如果僅僅需要是在特定的小問題層面,也可以將其控制在相應 的小眾局域層面,使得整個行動服務於整體作戰行動的需要。 這裡的戰略戰役戰術,更多的指的是作戰設計和力量的投入。 由於戰場態勢可能瞬息萬變,有些議題也有可能在層級上發生變化,由戰略性的議題影響到戰役和戰術級的效果;有些議題,則由於戰術議題的特殊性,成為影響全局的戰役戰略級議題。

新興媒介主導性:認知域的主要影響管道,已經從傳統的紙質媒體和平面媒體轉向了新興媒體。 傳統媒介主要依賴單一媒介,如報紙、雜誌、書籍、傳單、海報等來傳遞訊息;後期電視的產生帶來了立體媒體。 到了網路時代,特別是網路2.0時代和智慧通訊設備的誕生,人們更加依賴多媒介、多模態以及短視頻、短文本的形式來傳遞訊息。 各種智慧型手機、智慧型平板、智慧型播放器等高階設備的推陳出新,各種新興社群軟體和工具的誕生,使得新興媒體成為當下人們進行溝通與交流的主要工具。 新興媒體、新興社群軟體和工具已成為當下各種力量在社會安全、輿論安全、意識形態安全、社會安全和政治安全展開博弈和鬥爭的重要空間。 網路安全,特別是能否掌握住新型的社群媒體、新興社群軟體和工具等的安全,某種程度上也說,是一國認知領域能否安全的關鍵。 新興媒體工具和新型媒體空間的訊息已成為各國認知作戰的主戰場、主陣地和主要爭奪空間。 值得指出的是,左右人們認知的思想和理論將成為認知域作戰各層面的最有影響力的武器。

語言對抗適應智慧時代認知運算增強新算力

在人工智慧時代,在大數據分析與運用、超級運算能力、智慧運算能力、自然語言處理能力、智慧型手機傳播能力以及新一代網路通訊能力大幅提升的基礎上,人類已經開始可以對全社會、全網 領域、局部群體、局部不同群體以及特定個體進行精準的語言文化、心理認知、群體情緒、社會行為建模和分析。 特別是人們對大腦認知、人腦思考、思考模式、習慣偏好、意象圖式、認知框架、甚至神經網路、人機協同、腦控技術等的深刻認識與掌握,只要有足夠多元的 動態數據,人們就可以把人們的心理活動、情感活動、認知活動、社會輿論以及行為方式等全部計算模擬出來,透過深算、精算、妙算,可以精準地把握人們的認知世界,形成 對人們認知域的精細和深刻的控制。 這方面又呈現以下特徵:

計算的全維度:認知域作為一個新興領域,其涉及的方方面面都可以被數據化並實現全方位全過程全個體可計算,可以通過廣泛的收集各類型信息,經過信息梳理進而可體現為 關於作戰對手主體因素多樣化的大數據,從而可以就此開展面向全體、群體、群體之間以及個體數據及其之間的各種計算,由此,以往無法實現的基於思維、心理、情感、言論 、行為等方面的各種活動都可以透過計算來完成、展示和精準把握。

計算的認知性:認知域的計算體現了強烈的認知性,它更多地可以揭示各種事物、事件、人物之間的難以用肉眼觀察到的關聯關係,可以揭示同一事件框架 中各種概念之間的聚集與層級關係,反映各概念之間或明或暗、或直接或間接的深層認知聯繫,揭示概念之間的複雜概念網絡體系,使人們看到完全超越一般肉眼 觀察的深層認知世界。

計算的智能性:認知域的計算又反映了強烈的智能性。 這種智能性表現為透過計算,會得出具有智慧性的結論。 譬如可以透過大量文本收集和資料挖掘,尋找人工力量受限而看不到的各種主題、各種觀點、各種傾向、各種人群、各種立場、各種訴求之間的關係,形成對 某一問題的更為全面、縱深、精確、系統的認識,做出科學優化的決策。 這類決策既可能是與人類智慧相符,也可能是超越甚至遠勝於人類的智慧。 運用好認知運算的力量,特別是綜合本國的數據和對手的數據,可以更好地做到提前預防、提前預警、提前開展佈局,並能夠實現最好最優最快最精準地打擊和反擊 ,也能夠更好地體現高效有力有針對性的防護。 這裡的認知運算,更多的是對某一可能的宏觀中觀或微觀的議題在不同人群、不同時間段、不同背景下,在全域或某一局域網域、某一特定群體內部可能 產生的迴響,特別是對與對手展開賽局時雙方可能呈現的主動、被動的態勢進行分析與檢視,對認知域的攻防等。

發揮話語主體地位釋放話語力量的新運用

認知域作戰有一個非常重要的依托,就是它主要依托語言媒介來發揮作用,主要透過話語層面來施加影響,主要透過話語的敘事性來形成對認知域的隱性作用,主要透過文化模式 來施加潛在作用,透過跨文化的傳播來施加或明或暗的作用。 其主要體現為以下方面:

文本話語獨特性:認知域是需要用資訊來施加影響力的。 儘管訊息可能依托影片圖片的特殊視覺效果來展現,但從根本上說,文本所綜合表達話語的獨特性成為產生認知影響的主要依賴。 這其中,話語表達的模式、話語表達的技巧、話語表達說服力和感染力的主要設計,特別是話語敘事獨特性將是影響人們認知的關鍵。 這可能包括敘事的視角,敘事的主題、風格,敘事的故事框架,敘事的語言創新,敘事的關鍵語句,敘事蘊含的哲學、人文、宗教、社會、自然等情懷,敘事的不同參與者身份 ,敘事的多元評價,敘事的真實度、深度和情感溫度,敘事對於觀點的潛移默化影響作用,敘事釋放的個人情感、價值觀念、意識形態、立場評價等。 文本話語的獨特性,是認知域作戰以文本施加認知影響的重要依靠。 充分利用文本的複雜性,發揮多樣化文本各自優勢,發揮文本內涵的隱性和顯性認知影響的作用,已成為文本話語認知域作戰的關鍵。 其中最為重要的,就是要創新文本話語,用更嶄新的話語、更加新奇的表述,更加獨特的表達來贏得讀者,使讀者了解並在潛移默化中感受文本中的思想,並在無聲無息中接受 文本的思想。

文化模式潛在性:認知域作戰,一定要深刻掌握不同國家和民族文化的特徵和模式。 不同國家、不同民族,其文化的模型不一樣,哲學思維、傳統文化、宗教信仰、風俗習慣、思考方式皆有明顯不同;不同文化下的國民,也有著不同樣的民族心理、民族性的認可 知模式,也應該有典型的屬於本民族本文化的認知偏好,也有相應的短處與弱點,有的還明顯存在與本國其他民族有巨大差異的認識,甚至還有誤解和敵意。 因此,認知域作戰在文化層面,就是要掌握好不同國家的整體文化模型,建構不同國家不同群體的文化模型,建構不同國家在不同事物上的不同認知模型,充分掌握某一國家在一 在系列事物和議題上的整體態度和行事方式,特別是針對一些典型案例、文化禁忌、宗教要求、精神追求、整體觀念等。 要藉助現有理論和發現,綜合建構在認知領域不同人群對一些典型問題、敏感問題、重要問題的基本表現,為下一步進行認知作戰提供重要的參考和指導。 加強對敵方不同人員的文化模式研究,特別是軍隊人員,重點崗位的人員,包括對方將領、軍官、士兵等的基本文化特徵和模型的研究與構建,譬如人物心理認知行為與文化模型畫像 ,已經成為認知域作戰的核心做法。 對對方一般人員,特別是一般國民、市民的認知模式,以及特定族群,包括特殊的非政府組織力量等的認知分析,也同樣具有重要價值。

跨文化策略傳播性:認知域作戰,是面向國際的語言傳播與文化傳播,需要遵循國際傳播的規律。 要把握國際傳播的基本範式,要把本國故事與國際表達巧妙結合,要將對方語言與文化和本國的故事與思想巧妙結合;要善於結合不同的藝術形式,包括文字、圖片、繪畫、音樂 (聲音)、錄像等手段或多模態的手段來實現資訊的國際傳播。 同時,也要在戰略層面統籌多維宏觀的傳播:要利用各種手段,依靠軍民融合軍民協同軍民一體開展傳播;除了非政府組織之外,特別是要依靠民間力量,依靠專家、意見領袖、普通 民眾來幫助軍隊來進行認知域作戰;要統一設置議題,多點多位多維發聲,形成戰略傳播態勢,為重大行動、重大議題、重大危機管控等形成應急解決的良好態勢,形成良好輿論氛圍 ,營造正面效應,消除不利影響或撲滅不利影響。 特別是要建立一支能精通外語、懂得跨文化技巧、知曉國際傳播規律、能在國際多維平台巧妙發聲的精幹隊伍。 這些人員平時可以進行廣泛的議題知覺、收集和討論,借助普通議題或特殊議題建立

粉絲群;更重要的是,在關鍵時刻,透過他們的粉絲群體,施加影響,完成策略傳播任務。

目前,隨著混合戰多域戰全局戰的大行其道,認知域作戰已成為雜糅其間、混合其間的常用手段,認知域作戰由陌生、新興、發展到壯大的歷程,更是傳統輿論戰、 心理戰、法律戰發展的高階階段複雜階段升級階段。 它的興起,更具欺騙性、模糊性、隱蔽性、嵌入性、植入性和不可觀察性,特別是考慮它與當代新興媒體進場深度接軌深度融合,而且還不斷學習借鑒融入多學科、 跨學科、跨領域的新想法、新技術、新手段。 由此,認知域作戰已然成為我們必須高度警覺高度提防的作戰形式。

(國防科技大學文理學院教授、博士生導師梁曉波)

【本文系國家社科基金重大計畫「國防與軍隊改革視野下的國防語言能力建構」階段性成果】

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”]

中國軍事原文來源:http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2022/0517/c1011-32423888.html

中國軍事認知域作戰:關注對手思想與情感衝突-認知域作戰的突出屬性

Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations: Focus on the Adversary Mind and Emotional Conflict – Prominent Attributes of Cognitive Domain Operations

要點提示

●實務證明,認知域作戰打破了傳統意義上的線上線下的資料壁壘,透過統合利用電信網路、網際網路、物聯網等管道,借助先進演算法,發起者可以有效切換各種空間,優選作戰樣式 ,甚至聚焦在私人空間、公共空間精準釋放乾擾訊息,以達到傳統作戰方式無法達到的效果。

●在未來的認知域作戰中,科學和邏輯等理性因素對個體認知的影響極有可能被削弱,認知對抗或將成為情感與情感的較量。

目前,智慧化科技的快速發展,正全方位變革訊息傳播的邏輯,使訊息對思維意識的影響更加深刻和全面,人的大腦認知真正上升為軍事對抗的重要場域。 智慧化時代,資訊傳播機制的不斷演進將從多面向體系化重塑認知對抗,進而推動認知域作戰發生根本性變革。

人工智慧成為認知域作戰的主要驅動力

智慧化時代,資訊傳播以數據為依托,人工智慧技術貫穿資訊收集、生產、回饋等全過程。 人工智慧這項顛覆性技術在軍事領域的廣泛深入應用,將是未來認知域作戰規劃和實施等整個過程的關鍵支撐。

人工智慧技術將貫穿未來認知域作戰多場景。 在認知域作戰行動部署、節奏把控等過程中,參戰各方依托先進算法作為行動的“調控者”“把關人”,來自各個作戰域的大量關於戰場行動的信息,為交戰各方 高效率決策和實施認知域作戰提供驅動力。 實踐證明,認知域作戰打破了傳統意義上的線上線下的資料壁壘,透過統合利用電信網路、互聯網、物聯網等管道,借助先進演算法,發起者可以有效切換各種空間,優選作戰樣式, 甚至聚焦在私密空間、公共空間精準釋放乾擾訊息,以達到傳統作戰方式無法達到的效果。

此外,人工智慧從賦能單環節朝向連結作戰各環節、全流程演變。 目前,人工智慧在資訊傳播中也局限於定位目標受眾,以提高資訊和信宿的匹配率。 未來認知域作戰,人工智慧將在認知域作戰規劃和實施各環節「一站式」發揮作用,並不斷強化各環節之間的耦合。 外軍認為,未來認知域作戰中,可利用數據差異化投送,啟動機器人瞬時製造輿論潮流,影響認知效果。 戰略戰役層面,可基於長期追蹤數據和不斷調整優化的演算法策略,計算不同地域、群體認知態勢,輔助決策者規劃核心敘事、主要議題等,從而調控行動實施和協同動作。

自主對抗成為認知域作戰的顯著特徵

隨著智慧程式從協同傳播、參與傳播到自主傳播,以及智慧終端的連結生態的不斷擴大,未來戰場上,官兵將越來越多地可以接收到智慧程式、智慧終端發送的各類訊息。 而在虛擬空間,數位孿生體、虛擬人之間的互動溝通,將會傳導作用於現實世界人的認知。 從智慧化條件下的認知域作戰的發展趨勢來看,人的介入度將逐漸降低,資訊彈藥的採集、合成、發送將更加自主高效,話語策略、行動策略的製定執行更趨自主化, 整個流程節奏空前快速。 但就結果而言,人仍是認知域作戰的最終目標,由自主化武器賦能加速的流程會持續強化對人認知的控制。

借助智慧程式、智慧終端、數位孿生體、虛擬人等自主對抗工具,參戰各方將在認知域作戰態勢佈設、時空運用、資訊內容設計等方面擁有更多彈性,資訊真偽對抗將更加 突出。 未來的認知域作戰,自主化武器將有可能突破力量與時空的限制,行動樣式更趨複雜。 外軍實踐表明,運用網路進行面向大眾的「噴灌式」傳播、面向特定群體的「滴灌式」傳播,將成為認知域作戰的常見樣式。 智慧程式、智慧終端機由於具有大量複製部署、不間歇運轉等特點,能夠支援開發更多更複雜的行動樣式。 如可圍繞特定議題、瞄準特定攻擊對象,迅即調動海量社交機器人,輪番集中擴散信息,或利用圍繞特定個體的智能設備採集相關數據,運用對話機器人、虛擬人與個體長期伴生互動、持續誘導,以 達成作戰目的。

未來認知域作戰,自主化武器隱蔽操控認知域戰場將成為常態,社交機器人可以根據需要製造假輿情、假熱點,從而產生更多的個體感知迷霧;智能合成技術將降低虛假信息製作門檻, 從而增加鑑偽成本和難度;機器人帳號、虛擬人信源將更難以甄別,而「一對一」的認知詐欺日益普遍。

情感衝突成為認知域作戰的突出屬性

智能化時代,新科技將拓寬人類的認知範圍、加深人們的感知程度。 擴展現實、元宇宙等技術將更全像、透明地呈現戰場環境、事件現場等,且場景可觸可感可交互,受眾在認知事件真相時將會更加受制於感性邏輯的影響。

得益於行動互聯網的發展,資訊傳播的迅捷度快速提高,透過大批次的資訊短時間內集中釋放,可極大壓縮個體的反應時間,使個體難以進行深度思考。 在事件全貌完整展現之前,受眾往往已形成立場傾向甚至將注意力轉向新焦點,依據碎片化線索輸出結論的模式加劇了對訊息的非理性、情緒化反應。 在未來的認知域作戰中,科學和邏輯等理性因素對個體認知的影響極有可能被削弱,認知對抗或將成為情感與情感的較量。 在訴諸理性與訴諸感性的抉擇中,參戰各方越發注重以情動人,透過感性手段激盪、佔據甚至極化目標對象心智,主導認知域對抗態勢。

智能化時代,認知撬動愈加倚重感性爭取。 一方面,以情緒喚醒策略增強認知共鳴。 未來的認知域作戰,行動發起者透過把殘酷激烈的交戰畫面、戰後慘像或參戰士兵傷亡過程與現狀有所選擇地呈現於受眾眼前,以此強烈刺激受眾情緒,喚醒受眾內心深處 的情感認同。 人作為傳播網絡的節點,透過智慧演算法可蒐集各類體徵數據,使行動發起者得以較準確地研判訊息所產生的情緒效果,進而動態調整內容,強化情緒反應。 行動發起者透過數據計算選定具有相似理解語境、相同情感特質的群體,或選定易受影響、具有較大影響價值的特定個體,透過靶向傳播同質化的信息流,從而激發其 群體認知共鳴。

另一方面,以道德裹挾策略激發價值認同。 面對累積加重的片段化、非理性認知反應模式,作戰行動發起者可透過二元對立的話語體系佔據道德高點、匯聚利己價值認知洪流,進而實現裹挾效果。 智慧傳播環境下豐富的呈現形態、直抵民眾的社群管道,為行動發起者運用此策略提供了便捷手段。 近年來的局部戰爭中,科技演進對道德裹挾策略的促進已逐步體現,如社群媒體將以往的秘密外交暴露於民眾面前,交戰各方首腦政要運用這一手段,直播或全程公開與別處決策 層、菁英群等的溝通細節,話語策略也愈發突顯道德仲裁與批判,進而影響、刺激國際民眾支持己方價值立場。

萬物互聯擴展認知域作戰的戰場空間

隨著資訊傳播技術的發展,社群媒體逐漸成為塑造認知的主要戰場,交戰各方的機構、個人與民眾透過社群媒體可以直接接觸並產生相互關聯,從而使全天候的認知爭奪成為可能。

智慧傳播時代,萬物互聯成為新的社會連結模式,傳播主體、傳播行為無所不在。 在此影響下,認知域作戰空間將擴展至智慧物聯終端、場景,並延伸至實體空間和虛擬空間兩個世界。 萬物互聯導致認知域作戰空間的泛在,將進一步推動作戰主體的泛在,自然人、具備資訊收發能力的智慧終端,甚至網路世界中的虛擬角色都有可能成為作戰主體,認知域作戰參戰 力量的類型將會大大拓展,認知域作戰的組織方式將會向分散式協同方向轉變。

未來的認知域作戰,深處衝突腹地的人與機器都將成為作戰的重要力量,在智慧化技術的支撐下,將協同繪製戰場圖景、參與「書寫」戰爭全過程。 前線士兵透過社群網路源源不絕地將個人戰場經歷,經過個人化包裝後適時推送展現給世人,單兵裝備、作戰平台將擔負戰場影像擷取、傳輸任務,並根據預設程序觸發自動處理和發布機制 ,以多種方式配合實體空間作戰行動,爭奪制資訊權和製腦權。 隨著通訊技術的不斷發展,前線士兵、智慧裝備還可以根據上級指令,有針對性地對所掌握的資訊進行再加工、再處理,從而更加便捷地、全景全像地呈現己方所要表達的戰場景象 ,實現認知域作戰攻心奪志的最終目標。

外語英語翻譯:

Important tips

●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.

中國軍事原文來源:http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/10208858.html

中國軍事認知戰—「以決策為中心的戰爭」思想與認知複雜性:武器化的複雜性

Chinese Military Cognitive Warfare – Thoughts of “decision-centered warfare” and cognitive complexity: Weaponized Complexity

繁體中文

——由「決策中心戰」與認知複雜性所想到的

中国军网-解放军报

編按 複雜性科學是當代科學發展的前沿領域之一。 英國物理學家霍金稱「21世紀將是複雜性科學的世紀」。 作為人類社會的社會現象,戰爭從來就是一個充滿蓋然性的複雜巨系統。 近年來,隨著戰爭形態的演變,傳統科學體系下的知識論越來越難以滿足戰爭實踐發展的需要。 關注複雜性科學原理和思維方法,或將成為開啟現代戰爭大門的鑰匙。 這篇文章從複雜性科學角度對「決策中心戰」作一研究探討。

「決策中心戰」是近年來出現的新概念。 緣何提出「決策中心戰」? 按美軍的說法,要「打一場讓對手看不懂的戰爭」。 進入21世紀以來,隨著戰爭形態的演變和作戰方式的不斷變革,美軍發現傳統意義上的網路中心戰越來越難以適應戰場實際,「決策中心戰」在此背景下應運而生。

一、創造複雜

所謂“決策中心戰”,就是在人工智慧等先進技術的加持下,透過對作戰平台的升級改造、分散式部署實現多樣化戰術,在保障自身戰術選擇優勢的同時,向敵方施加高複雜度 ,以乾擾其指揮決策能力,在新維度上實現對敵的壓倒性優勢。

為什麼「對手看不懂」? 其實就是要透過分散式部署、彈性組合、智慧化指控,讓對手在認知上就對戰場態勢和作戰機制不理解,無所適從。 這是將戰爭對抗從機械化戰爭中比誰“力量大”,到信息化戰爭中比誰“速度快”,再到在未來戰爭中比誰“決策對”的又一次轉變。 用中國古代軍事家孫子的話說就是,“不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也”,通過巧妙地指揮控制和決策,使得戰場情況變得更加複雜,讓對手沒辦法打仗。

如何做到這一點呢? 簡單地說,就是利用複雜系統的性質,找到對手的「命門」加以利用和控制。 一個基本方法就是,透過增加複雜性重塑對手的決策流程,逼迫對手引入新的決策參量,導致其決策變得複雜,從而改變因果關係和決策流程,最終使其走向混亂。 過去對抗局面之所以能夠發揮平衡作用,是因為所有參與者都清楚博弈的結果,因而容易做出權衡,但複雜性往往會破壞這種平衡。 這也是為什麼複雜性能夠作為武器的原因。

需要注意的是,戰場對任何一方都是公平的。 在未來戰場上,要讓敵人單向感到決策複雜,而己方不被複雜所困擾,首先要在指揮控制能力上優於對手。 戰場決策的複雜度主要體現在「OODA」循環的判斷和決策環節。 在正常環境下,「OODA」循環可以走完從觀察、判斷、決策到行動的完整週期。 但如果有辦法讓戰場變得更複雜,使得對手始終無法及時作出有效判斷,進而無法進入決策和行動環節,就可以把對手的「OODA」循環始終限制在觀察和判斷環節上,無法形成閉環, 這或許就是「決策中心戰」試圖創造複雜性想要達到的結果。 因此,如何快速作出判斷,就成為首要關注的問題。 如果這個認知過程能夠在人工智慧等先進技術支援下快速完成的話,也就是實現所謂的智慧認知,就可以大幅加快「OODA」循環速度,奪取單邊優勢。

在觀察的基礎上得出正確的判斷,是做出正確決策的前提。 但這是建立在「具有認知能力」這個條件下才能做到的。 目前,在指揮資訊系統、兵棋推演系統等系統中,這些認知工作基本上都是由人來完成的。 由人工智慧系統自主地完成判斷及決策,過去的嘗試幾乎都不成功,因為智慧認知建模的問題始終沒有解決好。 各種模型表現出來的行為都或多或少帶有“機械味”,並不能真正顯示出智能的特徵。 外軍這些年也一直將「人的行為建模」作為研究重點,但目前來看仍然進展緩慢。 智能認知為什麼這麼難,又難在哪裡? 筆者認為,其實核心困難就在如何理解和處置複雜性上面。

二、理解複雜

本世紀之初,美國蘭德公司針對2005年前後某熱點地區可能發生的軍事衝突,曾利用模擬系統對美國空軍作戰需求進行了1700餘次推演,然後進行統計分析,最後得出了美空軍如何 在戰場上保持優勢的結論。 這種統計分析方法有一個基本的假設:每個試驗都是獨立且無序的,規則之間也不會相互影響。 這就像丟硬幣一樣,丟一次正面,丟第二次有可能也是正面。 但如果丟1萬次,結果某一面的機率就會越來越趨近50%。 這種方法用於物理研究時是科學準確的,但移植到人類社會問題例如戰爭問題研究時,情況就變得不同了。

人是有認知的,不會像物理實體那樣只遵從物理定律,指揮官在對作戰問題進行分析時也不會只是簡單地機械重複。 通常情況下,人在決策時,一定會考慮先前的結果,導致對下一步行動有所調整。 這樣就會出現人類行為固有的冪律特徵,也就是常說的「二八律」。 所以,我們不能簡單地複製物理思維去思考人類社會的事情。

之所以會這樣,主要還是因為我們常常習慣用還原論的簡單思考方法來思考問題。 簡單系統結構不變,結果具有確定性,因果對應清楚,可重複、可預測、可分解還原等,已成為我們預設的科學思考方法。 但世界上還存在著許多複雜系統,這些系統存在著整體性質,像是人體、社會、經濟、戰爭等,都屬於這一類。 什麼叫整體性質? 就是觀察局部得不到,但在整體上看卻又存在的,就是整體性質。 舉例來說,一個活人和一個死人從成分上來看都一樣,但一死一活,差別就在於是否有生命,生命就是一種整體性質。 複雜系統結構可變,具有適應性、不確定性、湧現性、非線性等特點,且結果不重複,也不可預測。 社會、經濟、戰爭、城市包括智慧系統,這些與人有關的系統都有這些特點,其實它們都是典型的複雜系統。 所以,戰爭具有「勝戰不復」的特點,其實反映的就是戰爭複雜系統的「不可重複」性質。

正是因為複雜系統存在複雜性,原因和結果不能一一對應,會導致相似性原理失效,所以也就無法用傳統方法進行建模和研究。 為解決複雜性問題,過去採取的主要是一些傳統物理學方法,例如統計方法,以及基於Agent的簡單生命體建模方法。 前面提到的蘭德公司研究就是如此,雖然能解決部分問題,但將其用於解決與人有關尤其是與認知相關的問題時,得到的結果卻與實際偏離很大,不盡如人意 。

為什麼會這樣呢? 這是因為戰爭複雜度與物理複雜性所產生的源點不一樣。 物理複雜性的來源往往在於其物理運動規律是複雜的;而戰爭複雜性卻來自人的認知。 因為人不是雜亂無章、沒有思想的粒子,也不是只有簡單生命邏輯的低等生物,而是具有判斷和決策認知能力的智慧生物。 人會透過因果關係對結果進行反思、總結經驗再調整,然後決定後面如何行動。 而且,人的認知還會不斷發展,這又會進一步影響後續的認知,但由於認知具有很大的不確定性,所以未來的行動也就難以預測。

可以這樣說,在目前的技術條件下,可預測的基本上都是物理世界的簡單系統規律,而人的認知對社會或戰爭的影響往往是難以預測的。 所以說,拿物理思維去思考人類社會的事情是我們常犯的錯誤。 基於認知的複雜性,與那些一成不變的物理規律截然不同,我們應對戰爭中的複雜性,就必須針對「認知」這個核心特點,在指揮控制方面下功夫。

三、應對複雜

「決策中心戰」的核心在於認知的加快。 因為戰爭中幾乎所有的變化,都可以看成是認知的升級和複雜化。 在筆者看來,應對“決策中心戰”,需要“以複雜對抗複雜”,從基礎工作做起。

一是要理解「決策中心戰」的核心理念。 即透過主動創造複雜性來掌握戰場主動權。 對己方來說,需要管理好自身的複雜性;對敵人來說,則是對對手施加更多的複雜性。 二是了解戰爭機理發生的改變。 作戰體系演化速度指數級提高,會導致複雜戰場的感知、控制和管理變得困難,智慧認知的角色將變得更加突出。 為此,需要瞄準「指揮與控制」這個重點,將戰場管理的能力作為關鍵。 三是找到應對的正確理念和方法。 從戰爭設計入手,以決策智能這個方向為突破口。

近年來,人工智慧領域的一系列成果,為解決指揮決策智慧問題帶來了曙光。 AlphaGo系列研究為決策智慧技術帶來了突破;而GPT大模型的出現,則更是進一步證實了決策智慧乃至通用人工智慧在未來具有實現的可能。 現在看來,人工智慧在未來深度參與戰爭,已經是必須面對的現實。 而這會為戰爭和戰場帶來更多的複雜性。

決策智能研究應該放在指揮控制層上。 要贏得戰爭,指揮控制決策需要體現「科學」和「藝術」兩個面向。 指揮控制的科學性主要體現在「知道怎麼做時」如何做,例如利用得到的指控資料(武器裝備、兵力編成、戰場環境、對手情報等),指控方法(任務、流程、程序、運籌 、規劃、最佳化等),制定出作戰規劃並加以實施。 指揮控制的藝術性則體現在「不知道怎麼做時」知道如何做,這才是真正的智能之所在。 方法無非是不斷試錯,累積經驗,找到解決問題的途徑,並形成新的科學知識。 事實上,現實中指揮者也是透過試誤不斷發現和總結制勝規律,而每個指揮者還都具有自己的直覺和經驗。

所以說,真正的智能其實是找到例外狀況的解決方法。 循規蹈矩不是智能,自己找到解題的方法才是關鍵。 也許這才是決策智能的核心,也是需要進一步努力的目標。

原汁原味的老外英語:

Complexity is also a weapon

——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.

中國軍事原文來源:http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/162348888.html

中國解放軍認為軍事人工智慧是一把雙面刃

China’s PLA Considers Military Artificial Intelligence a Double-Edged Sword

原軍國語:

隨著智慧時代的到來,人工智慧正以超乎人們想像的速度走近,不僅影響著各行各業,也正在改變我們的認知和觀念。 作為對技術變革天生敏感的領域,人工智慧的軍事發展和應用正在蓬勃發展。

目前,隨著資訊科技、感測器、大數據、物聯網的快速發展,人工智慧軍事應用正迎來新一輪機會。 滲透到軍事應用各個領域,具有高效指揮、精準打擊、自動化操作、智慧行為的人工智慧武器裝備將為未來戰場貢獻獨特的「機器智慧和力量」。

恩格斯曾說過,尖端科技的應用首先始於軍事領域。 當新科技顯著增強軍事作戰能力時,就會帶來新的軍事變革。 美國、俄羅斯等傳統軍事強國預見了人工智慧技術在軍事領域的廣泛應用前景。 他們都將人工智慧視為「改變戰爭遊戲規則」的顛覆性技術,並認為未來的戰爭將是智慧化戰爭和未來軍備。 這場比賽將是一場智慧軍備競賽,並已提前規劃,希望抓住人工智慧軍事應用的機遇,力爭與潛在對手產生「代溝」。 幾個月前,美國國防部副部長沙納漢正式發布了關於建立「聯合人工智慧中心」的備忘錄,將進一步加大人工智慧在美軍軍事計畫中的應用。 俄羅斯也將人工智慧視為未來軍事競爭的製高點,正在加緊研發能夠駕駛車輛的人形機器人以及組成能夠與人類士兵並肩作戰的機器人部隊。

需要看到的是,人工智慧的軍事應用是一把「雙面刃」。 “這可能成為人類發生過的最好的事情,也可能成為最糟糕的事情。” 霍金對人工智慧的評價啟示我們面對人工智慧「來勢洶洶」的軍事應用要保持足夠的謹慎。 小心。 未來,隨著智慧無人系統大量應用於戰場,戰爭成本將大幅降低,戰鬥人員「零傷亡」有望成為現實。 這很容易導致軍事大國更隨意地使用武力。 在複雜的戰場環境下,高智慧無人作戰系統極有可能遇到辨識錯誤、通訊劣化,甚至在敵方電磁、網路攻擊後「叛逃反擊」等問題。 濫殺無辜、系統失控的情況更是有可能發生。 為智慧武器的軍事應用帶來了無盡的隱憂。

可見,與戰爭有關的重大問題絕不能輕易交給機器來決定。 即使人工智慧的軍事應用日益成熟,我們也不能允許智慧武器的「野蠻生長」。 我們需要警惕人工智慧可能帶來的安全隱憂。 法律、道德和許多其他問題。 加強社會保障監管,形成適應人工智慧時代的社會治理模式; 積極參與人工智慧國際軍控討論和談判,為人工智慧帶來的安全、法律和倫理問題貢獻中國智慧和中國方案; 牢固地建立人類是人機關係的主導思想,才能安全有效地掌控人工智慧,讓其為人類和平發展服務,而不是讓人工智慧成為「魔鬼的幫兇」。

對於這種有望深刻改變未來戰爭形態的技術形態,我們不僅要保持清醒的頭腦,還要充分激發其活力。 從軍事變革的歷史來看,科學技術在歷次變革中都扮演了拉動動作用和基礎支撐作用。 誰對技術變革有敏感度,誰先實現技術突破,誰就能掌握戰爭新規則,掌控戰爭。 贏得未來戰爭的製高點。 對軍隊來說,無法正確預判軍事技術突破方向、掌握戰爭格局變化,不僅會導致「技術氾濫」。

差異”,但也導致核心能力、國家安全等危機。

今天,面對科技發展的“大變革”和“大突破”,我們應該從設計戰爭、掌握規則的角度,深刻把握人工智能對戰爭形態演變的內在驅動影響的勝利,真正掌握贏得未來戰爭的主動權。 我們要牢牢掌握人工智慧發展重大歷史機遇,做好戰略規劃,突顯人工智慧的目標牽引和規劃引領,密切追蹤前沿技術,積極主動行動,切實維護國家安全。

現代外國人英語:

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.

人民解放軍 來源:http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2018-11/08/content_88888.htm