Category Archives: China’s Informatization – 中國信息化

美國軍事網絡戰:黑客入侵防禦成為無菸的戰爭 // American military network warfare: hackers attack and defense creating a war without smoke

美國軍事網絡戰:黑客入侵防禦成為無菸的戰爭

American military network warfare: hackers attack and defense creating a war without smoke

Hackers may also be soldiers. Recently, the US Internet security company and the government issued a series of reports that “the Chinese military to participate in hacking.” With the “China hacker threat theory”, the US government immediately announced the latest anti-hacking strategy, although the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense in a timely manner to make a refutation, but for a time, hacker news from the army or aroused everyone’s interest. In fact, the United States is the world’s largest Internet hacker location, has a huge network of troops.

As the daily consumption from the physical store to the transfer of electricity, and now the war has also moved from the line to the line. Not only the United States, Europe and the United States and Asia, many countries have begun to set up their own “network forces” – hackers is to become a frequent visitor to this service. And how these countries are leading the “formal” network of the army.

In 007 “skyfall” in the lovely Mr. Q is a network war master.

In May 2010, the US Department of Defense set up a network warfare headquarters officially launched, the US military strategic headquarters in September 1, 2010 before the development of a network warfare philosophy and plans, and plans in the next few years to expand the network security forces to 4900 people. This marks the United States intends to military hegemony from the land, sea, sky and space to the so-called “fifth field” of the network space extension.

It is reported that the United States is currently recruiting 2,000 to 4,000 soldiers, set up a “network special forces.” This unit not only to assume the task of network defense, but also to other countries of the computer network and electronic systems for secret attacks. According to Xinhua reported that a former US Air Force Major John Bradley at a meeting in 2002, said the United States spent on network attacks on the study than the network defense much more, because the senior staff of the former more Interested. And, the US military network attack time may be much earlier than we imagined.

In the Iraq war that began in 2003, the US military used the cyber warfare more widely. Before the war, thousands of Iraqi military and political officials in their e-mail mailbox received the US military sent the “persuade the letter”, resulting in a great psychological impact. Less than four hours after the war, Al Jazeera English website will be the US military “ban”, can not function properly.

In addition, the United States also in 2006 and 2008 has held two code-named “network storm” large-scale network war exercises.

Japan and South Korea: already set up a “network army”

At the end of 2009, the Ministry of Defense of Japan decided to establish a special “cyber space defense team” in 2011 to guard against hacker attacks and strengthen the ability to protect confidential information. According to the Japanese “Yomiuri Shimbun” reported on May 1, 2011, “cyberspace defense team” plan is set in the SDF command communications system under the initial number of about 60 people. This “network force” is responsible for collecting and analyzing the latest virus information, and anti-hacker attack training.

Japan’s network warfare is through the master “system of network” to paralyze the enemy combat system. Japan in the construction of network combat system, emphasizing the “offensive and defensive”, allocated large sums of money into the network hardware and “network warfare” construction, respectively, the establishment of the “defense information communication platform” and “computer system common platform”, to achieve the SDF Organs, forces network system of mutual exchange and resource sharing. And set up by the 5000 people of the “cyberspace defense team”, developed the network operations “offensive weapons” and network defense system, now has a strong network attack combat strength.

The DPRK this “enemy”, South Korea in 1999 put forward the overall vision of the future information construction, announced in 2009 will be the formation of “network command”, and officially launched in 2010. At present, South Korea already has about 20 million received professional training of the huge personnel, and 5% of annual defense funds are used to develop and improve the implementation of the core technology of network warfare.

Britain and Russia: enlisted hackers

Network forces hackers preferred, as early as 1998, because of the successful invasion of the US Pentagon computer system, Israel’s 18-year-old boy hacker Tenenbaum put on uniforms to become an Israeli soldier. Subsequently, the British government also in 2009, including former hackers, including network elite to defend the network security. They are young, diverse in background, some have been hackers, and even minor cybercrime.

On June 25, 2009, the UK government introduced its first national cybersecurity strategy and announced the establishment of two new departments of cybersecurity, the Network Security Office and the Network Security Operations Center, which are responsible for coordinating government security and coordination of government and government The security of the main computer system of civil society.

India in 2007 formed a land, sea and air armed forces joint emergency team, and enlisted hackers. At the same time, by absorbing the civil master enlisted and the cadet students “hacker” technical training, etc., and gradually complete the future network war talent pool.

Military power Russia in the 1990s on the establishment of the Information Security Committee, specifically responsible for network information security, launched in 2002, “Russian Federal Information Security Theory”, the network information warfare compared to the future “sixth generation of war.” Russia already has a large number of network elite, anti-virus technology is walking in the forefront of the world, in the event of a threat or need, these talents and technology will soon be transferred to military use.

“Black door”: ridiculous blame

Although there is no factual basis, but the US Internet security companies and the government is still often create “hacker door”, directed at China, not only involving colleges and universities, enterprises, as well as technical schools such as Shandong Lan Xiang, there are network individuals, now point to the Chinese military, Even to provide “hacker headquarters building” photos. However, the relationship between the IP address alone, “the source of the attack from China,” highlighting the ignorance of the relevant US people.

How do hackers use their own computer to attack? How can I leave a registered IP address? They usually through the springboard control of third-party computer to form a botnet and then attack. Take the initiative to expose the IP address left traces, is it a professional hacker!

China’s Ministry of Defense International Bureau of Communications Deputy Director Meng Yan wrote that the United States in the transformation of the way to render the Chinese hacker attack trick, even ignore itself is the network virtual space “rule makers.” 2012, 73,000 foreign IP addresses as Trojans and botnet control server to participate in the control of more than 1,400 million hosts in China, 32,000 IP through the implantation of the back door of China’s nearly 38,000 sites in the implementation of remote control, which originated in the United States The number of network attacks ranked first.

Hacker attack and defense: no smoke of the war

Only a few minutes, the domestic password experts, Tsinghua University Distinguished Professor Wang Xiaoyun and her research team with ordinary personal computers, will be able to crack MD5 password algorithm. Before her, even with the fastest giant computer, but also to calculate more than 1 million years to crack.

If this is a war, you can not hear the sound and can not see the smoke. Hackers often through the acquisition of passwords, place Trojan horse program, e-mail attacks, node attacks, network monitoring, find system vulnerabilities, steal privileges and so on, and the use of WWW spoofing technology, the use of account attacks, etc. to launch network attacks.

Reporters learned that the current “hanging horse” (that is, in the page to load Trojan virus), “phishing” (forged WEB site or e-mail, etc.) and other ways to become the mainstream of hacker attacks.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

 

黑客也可能是戰士。近日,美國網絡安全公司和政府接連發布報告稱“中國軍方參與黑客攻擊”。借助“中國黑客威脅論”,美國政府隨即公佈最新反黑客戰略,儘管中國外交部和國防部及時對此做出駁斥,但一時間,黑客從軍的消息還是激起大家的興趣。其實,美國才是世界上最大的網絡黑客所在地,擁有龐大的網絡大軍。

如同日常消費從實體店向電商轉移,如今戰爭也已經從線下搬到線上。不僅是美國,歐美亞等洲許多國家都已經著手建立本國的“網絡部隊”——黑客更是成為此軍種的常客。而這些國家又是如何領導這批“正規”的網絡大軍。

在007《skyfall》中可愛的Q先生就是一名網絡戰的高手。

2010年5月,美國國防部組建網絡戰司令部正式啟動,美軍戰略司令部要求在2010年9月1日前製訂出網絡戰作戰理念和計劃,併計劃在隨後幾年把網絡安全部隊擴編到4900人。這標誌著美國打算將軍事霸權從陸地、海洋、天空和太空向號稱“第五領域”的網絡空間延伸。

據悉,美國目前正在招募2000至4000名士兵,組建一支“網絡特種部隊”。這支部隊不僅要承擔網絡防禦的任務,還將對他國的電腦網絡和電子系統進行秘密攻擊。據新華網報導,一位前美國空軍少校約翰·布萊德利在參加2002年一次會議時就表示,美國花在網絡攻擊上的研究比網絡防禦上要多得多,因為高層人員對前者更感興趣。並且,美軍實施網絡攻擊的時間可能比大家想像的要早得多。

而在2003年開始的伊拉克戰爭中,美軍更為廣泛地使用網絡戰手段。戰前,數千名伊拉克軍政要員在他們的電子郵件信箱中收到美軍發來的“勸降信”,造成很大的心理影響。開戰後不到4個小時,半島電視台英語網站便被美軍“封殺”,不能正常運作。

另外,美國還於2006年和2008年先後舉行了兩次代號為“網絡風暴”的大規模網絡戰演習。

日韓:早已組建“網絡軍隊”

2009年底日本防衛省即決定,在2011年度建立一支專門的“網絡空間防衛隊”,以防備黑客攻擊,加強保護機密信息的能力。據日本《讀賣新聞》2011年5月1日報導,“網絡空間防衛隊”計劃設置於自衛隊指揮通信系統部之下,初期人數約60人。這支“網絡部隊”負責收集和分析研究最新的病毒信息,並進行反黑客攻擊訓練。

日本網絡戰是通過掌握“製網權”達到癱瘓敵人作戰系統。日本在構建網絡作戰系統中強調“攻守兼備”,撥付大筆經費投入網絡硬件及“網戰部隊”建設,分別建立了“防衛信息通信平台”和“計算機系統通用平台”,實現了自衛隊各機關、部隊網絡系統的相互交流和資源共享。並成立由5000人組成的“網絡空間防衛隊”,研製開發的網絡作戰“進攻武器”和網絡防禦系統,目前已經具備了較強的網絡進攻作戰實力。

而對朝鮮這個“敵人”,韓國在1999年提出了未來信息建設的總體設想,2009年宣布將組建“網絡司令部”,並於2010年正式啟動。目前,韓國已經擁有了約20萬接受過專業訓練的龐大的人才隊伍,而且每年國防經費的5%被用來研發和改進實施網絡戰的核心技術。

英俄:徵召黑客入伍

網絡部隊黑客優先,早在1998年,因為成功入侵美國五角大樓電腦系統,以色列18歲的少年黑客Tenenbaum穿上軍裝成為一名以色列士兵。隨後,英國政府也於2009年徵召包括前黑客在內的網絡精英保衛網絡安全。他們年輕,背景多樣,有的曾經是黑客,甚至有輕度網絡犯罪行為。

在2009年6月25日,英國政府出台首個國家網絡安全戰略,並宣布成立兩個網絡安全新部門,即網絡安全辦公室和網絡安全行動中心,分別負責協調政府各部門網絡安全和協調政府與民間機構主要電腦系統安全保護工作。

印度則在2007年組建了陸、海、空三軍聯合計算機應急分隊,並徵召黑客入伍。同時,通過吸納民間高手入伍和對軍校學員進行“黑客”技術培訓等方式,逐步完成未來網絡戰的人才儲備。

軍事大國俄羅斯上世紀90年代就設立了信息安全委員會,專門負責網絡信息安全,2002年推出《俄聯邦信息安全學說》,將網絡信息戰比作未來的“第六代戰爭”。俄羅斯已經擁有了眾多的網絡精英,反病毒技術更是走在了世界的前列,在遇到威脅或有需要時,這些人才和技術將能很快地轉入軍事用途。

“黑客門”:可笑的指責

雖然沒有事實依據,但美國網絡安全公司和政府仍然屢屢製造“黑客門”,矛頭直指中國,不僅涉及高校、企業,還有技校如山東藍翔,也有網絡個體,如今則指向中國軍方,甚至提供“黑客總部大樓”照片。然而,僅憑IP地址的關係就得出“攻擊源頭來自中國”,凸顯美國相關人士的無知。

黑客怎麼用自己的電腦發動攻擊?又怎麼會留下註冊IP地址?他們通常是通過跳板控制第三方電腦形成殭屍網絡再展開攻擊。主動暴露IP地址留下痕跡,豈是專業黑客所為!

中國國防部國際傳播局副局長孟彥日前撰文稱,美國各界在變換手法渲染中國黑客攻擊把戲時,竟然無視自身才是網絡虛擬空間的“規則制定者”。 2012年,7.3萬個境外IP地址作為木馬和殭屍網絡控制服務器參與控制中國境內1400餘萬台主機,3.2萬個IP通過植入後門對中國境內近3.8萬個網站實施遠程控制,其中源自美國的網絡攻擊數量名列第一。

黑客攻防:無硝煙的戰爭

只需要幾分鐘,國內密碼專家、清華大學特聘教授王小雲和她的研究小組用普通的個人電腦,就能破解MD5密碼算法。在她之前,即使採用最快的巨型計算機,也要運算100萬年以上才能破解。

如果這是戰爭,則聽不到聲音看不到硝煙。黑客往往通過獲取口令、放置特洛伊木馬程序、電子郵件攻擊、節點攻擊、網絡監聽、尋找系統漏洞、偷取特權等以及利用WWW欺騙技術、利用賬號攻擊等方式發起網絡攻擊。

記者了解到,目前“網頁掛馬”(即在網頁中加載木馬病毒)、“網絡釣魚”(偽造WEB站點或電子郵件等)等方式成為黑客攻擊的主流行為。

網絡空間治理的力量博弈、理念演變與中國戰略 // Power Game of Network Space Governance, Evolution of Ideas & China’s Strategy

網絡空間治理的力量博弈、理念演變與中國戰略

Power Game of Network Space Governance, Evolution of Ideas & China’s Strategy

Introduction
The global cyberspace governance process involves not only the complex game of information developed countries and information developing countries in the fields of Internet key resources, network power and network security, but also the mutual game between government, private sector and civil society. “Prism door incident” in the intensification of cyberspace governance game at the same time, but also to promote the policy position of the parties continue to adjust to increase the possibility of governance cooperation. At the same time, the cyberspace game also reflects the Internet governance and cyberspace governance and other related governance concepts of mutual conflict and integration trend. At present, China’s participation in global cyberspace governance still faces many challenges. China needs to be based on the development trend of network space game and the evolution of governance concept. Combining with the strategy of network power in the “13th Five-Year Plan”, this paper constructs long-term, complete and comprehensive aspects of international mechanism shaping, talent cultivation and technology development as the core Participation strategy.
In June 2013, former US National Security Agency (NSA) former employee Edward Snowden disclosed the council’s “prism” monitoring program. The event [1] made cyberspace governance in the international agenda in the priority of the re-ascension, but also exacerbated the differences in the position of the parties, leading to cyberspace governance in trouble, for the network space management system to create a great challenge The In addition, the international community on the complexity of cyberspace and its governance lack of clear, unified awareness, resulting in one-sided position and a single policy to further exacerbate the governance dilemma. In the face of the complex situation, Joseph Nye tries to explain the practice of cyberspace governance by referring to the theory of mechanism complex in the field of environmental governance, and analyzes the cyberspace management through the loosely coupled complex composed of many different governance mechanisms The [2] This provides a useful perspective for the analysis of cyberspace governance, that is, cyberspace governance is composed of multiple rather than a single governance mechanism, the interaction between the various mechanisms have an impact on governance. This paper intends to examine the development of cyberspace governance from a more macro perspective, and try to explore the evolution of the concept behind cyberspace game, and analyze the complex relationship between government, private sector and civil society in international and domestic levels The On this basis, to explore China’s response measures and participate in cyberspace governance strategy.

First, the power of cyberspace governance Game

network space management process with the government between the game process. According to the situation of network technology, network capacity and network utilization, governments can be divided into three categories: information developed countries, information developing countries and information undeveloped countries. [③] There are also international organizations to use the network readiness (Readiness) as an indicator to measure the degree of information technology. This ranking basically overlaps with the traditional developed, developing and underdeveloped countries, and of course there is also the level of informationization in individual developing countries rising to the ranks of developed countries, or the level of information in some developing countries The level of the developed countries. Therefore, in accordance with the information developed countries, developing countries and underdeveloped countries to divide the three points in the academic more accurate. There are three aspects of the power game of cyberspace governance: one is the game between the developed countries and the information developing countries in the network ownership, the network resource allocation; the second is the non-governmental actors and the government on the Internet key resource control, network security And freedom and other issues of the game; Third, as the dominant space in cyberspace, the US government in its own private sector, civil society and other countries in the Internet between the key resources and other issues on the game (Figure 1).

First of all, information between developed countries and information-developing countries around the network space between the key infrastructure and network technology between the game. According to the behavior, the topic and the characteristic of the power game in cyberspace management, it can be divided into three stages.
The first stage is the early period of Internet governance, which is roughly from the beginning of the formation of the Internet to the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (World Summit on Information Society, WSIS), which is divided into two phases: the Geneva Conference in 2003 and the Tunis Agenda in 2005. The World Summit on the Information Society appears to be a struggle between governments and the private sector and civil society, in essence, the game between the United States and other countries on Internet control.
This period is the stage of rapid development of the Internet, a large number of new technical and technical standards have been created, the US government took the opportunity to vigorously promote the development of information technology, and developed a series of international technical standards, industry and industry norms. And information developing countries are still in the study, learn from the stage, which makes the United States and other developed countries in the field in an absolute strong position. [4] This stage of Internet governance mainly around the Internet domain name registration and analysis and its corresponding 13 root server control, Internet Protocol (IP) address allocation and other key resources to compete. The United States has almost controlled all international organizations and core businesses that have developed and managed Internet standards and refused to internationalize the relevant management functions or to the United Nations specialized agencies. [⑤] Therefore, at the World Summit on the Information Society, despite the pressure from the United Nations, the developing countries and even the European countries, the United States still refused to hand over the Internet management rights. Into the 21st century, the information represented by China’s developing countries to enhance the network technology, they have the domain name, users and other Internet resources have exceeded the information developed countries, but the representation in the Internet governance is far from enough, So the existing Internet governance reflects the legitimacy of the questioned.
The second stage is the stage of political competition and sovereignty competition of cyberspace governance, which is called the “return” stage of the government in cyberspace. This stage from the Information Society World Summit to 2011. In 2011, China, Russia and other countries to the 66th session of the General Assembly to submit the “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”, advocated the United Nations in cyberspace governance play a leading role. In the same year, the United States and Britain and other governments dominated the global network space management conference (Global Cyberspace Conference), also known as the London process (London Process) was held. <A The network space has become the “fifth strategic space” of human society. With the continuous breakthrough of network technology and its disruptive transformation of real society, cyberspace has become the fifth strategic space of human society. The distribution of order, power and wealth in cyberspace, the developed countries and information developing countries have serious differences on the following issues: whether the cyberspace attribute is “global public domain” or “sovereignty”; governance is government-led “Multilateral governance”, or a multi-stakeholder model dominated by non-governmental actors; governance culture is a “multicultural” or “multicultural” that is dominated by the West. [⑥] The focus of this period is also reflected in the free flow of information content in the field, when Hillary Clinton took the US Secretary of State, the Internet for the freedom of many speeches, advocating the US Internet freedom strategy. The role of the US government and social media sites in the wake of the turbulence in North Africa, which began at the end of 2010, has aroused widespread concern in the developing countries and strengthened the management of the Internet. [⑦] The third stage from the “Prism Gate incident” until now, this stage of the competition more focused on cyberspace security governance. “Prism door incident” to the United States in the field of cyberspace governance moral high ground questioned, leadership decline, forcing it to promote cyberspace governance in the low posture. At the same time, cyberspace security situation is further deteriorating, and the security threats facing countries are further increased. After experiencing the fierce confrontation of the “prism gate incident”, the developed countries and the information developing countries are aware that the maintenance of cyberspace requires the participation of all countries, and no country can lead the cyberspace governance process alone. Information developed countries and information development countries in the cognitive level of the gap gradually narrowed, the reduction of confrontational initiatives, cooperation began to grow space. Second, the “prism gate incident” caused the government and the private sector, civil society between the network security, privacy and other issues on the fierce game. Former US National Security Agency former employee Edward Snow led to expose a including “prism”, “X key points” (X-Keyscore), “Fair” (Fairview), “core” (Main Core) and other monitoring systems, including 10 monitoring systems, the monitoring system by the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies to participate in almost cover the cyberspace of social networks, e-mail, instant messaging, Web pages, videos, photos, and so on. [8] National Security Agency requires Microsoft, Google, Facebook and other nine major global Internet companies to open the database to monitor the project to carry out data monitoring. In the “Prism Gate incident” exposure, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and other companies to the court to prosecute the federal government. [⑨] civil society have also acted against large-scale data monitoring. The American Civil Society Alliance launched a “Stop Watch Us” action on the Internet, putting pressure on the US government to get tens of thousands of Internet users’ signatures, messages and responses from hundreds of civic groups by organizing parades Demonstrations, petition to Congress, launch network initiatives, etc. to cooperate with the action. [⑩] In the “prism door incident” triggered the other countries with the US government to carry out monitoring projects ICT enterprises dissatisfaction, countries have taken new measures to protect cyberspace security. For example, the Chinese government has accelerated the process of legalization of cyberspace and began to discuss the guiding ideology of cybersecurity equipment, and formulated the network security review method. After the introduction of the “national security law”, “anti-terrorism law” “Network Security Law (Draft)” and “Criminal Law Amendment (9)” have significantly increased the terms involved in network security. These initiatives have aroused serious concern about US ICT companies and lobbyed the US government to put pressure on China to require the Chinese government to cancel the relevant provisions, such as Article 18 of the Anti-Terrorism Act provides that “telecom operators, Internet services Providers should be for the public security organs, the state security organs in accordance with the law to prevent and investigate terrorist activities to provide technical interface and decryption technical support and assistance. [11] Although from the government point of view, these initiatives help to maintain network security and national security, but in the private sector, the above-mentioned initiatives will not only increase the technical input, but also a substantial increase in costs. As long as cyberspace governance does not achieve a breakthrough, the government and the private sector, civil society between the game will continue to exist, and to a certain extent, will evolve into a national game. <A Finally, the US government and its private sector, civil society alliance with other countries in the Internet key resources on the issue of the game. Internet key resources include: IP address allocation, protocol parameter registration, gTLD system management, ccTLD system management and root server system management and time zone database management. Some scholars use the “cyberspace” in cyberspace to describe the status of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in cyberspace governance. [12] For historical reasons, these resources have been by the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (National Telecommunication and Information Administration, NTIA) under the Internet Digital Distribution Agency (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA) is responsible for managing, and NTIA authorizes its management of IANA functions through regular engagement with ICANN. Therefore, it can be argued that the US government controls the key resources of the Internet. The United Nations-appointed Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) noted in its report that the US government unilaterally controls the Internet’s key resources, such as root zone documents. [13] The international community has been dissatisfied with this situation, and the WGIG report has proposed four options to replace the existing structure, hoping to take over the Internet’s critical resources through intergovernmental organizations or global institutions. [14] For ICANN, although it has been seeking independence from the US government and has repeatedly contested it, it is more concerned with how to avoid other intergovernmental organizations or institutions to take over or replace their status. Milton Muller described the phenomenon as “some network liberals even eventually turned into secret supporters of nationalism, because as long as the challenged countries were their motherland, they turned to defend the United States, allowing Its control, leading the Internet. “[15] Thus, in some cases, ICANN chooses to” align “with the US government to prevent other countries or intergovernmental organizations from influencing their governance structures. In ICANN’s organizational structure and decision-making system, the Government Advisory Committee (Government Advisory Committee, GAC) is eligible to nominate a liaison who does not have the right to vote. Information developing countries believe that as an international mechanism for Internet governance, the lack of representation in ICANN from information developing countries should reflect government responsibilities and powers in their future management structures and increase the authority of the Governmental Advisory Committee The But ICANN has repeatedly said it will not accept this change. In this case, the US government representatives are highly consistent with ICANN’s official position, both in the government advisory committee and at ICANN’s plenary meetings. Until the “Prism Gate Event” broke out, the US government was forced to restart the process of internationalization of ICANN’s efforts to guide the cyberspace governance game to a new stage. Second, the future development of cyberspace management trend With the advancement of the network space management process, the parties to the understanding of the spatial properties of the network gradually reached a consensus, and thus in the governance approach, the path of the differences narrow. Especially at the cognitive level, the cognition of cyberspace from various countries is based on different political, economic and cultural backgrounds, emphasizing their uniqueness to objective properties and laws based on cyberspace, emphasizing the integration between different views. [16] Internet space interconnection, sharing attributes determine the zero-sum game does not apply to cyberspace, cyberspace security, development, freedom is the government, the private sector and civil society to pursue the common goal. At the same time, the mutual restraint of the three issues of security, development and freedom makes it impossible for either party to ignore the interests of other actors and pursue their own absolute interests. As President Xi Jinping on December 16, 2015 at the Second World Internet Conference (World Internet Conference, WIC) said: “There is no double standard in the field of information, countries have the right to maintain their own information security, not a national security while other countries are not safe, part of the national security and another part of the country is not safe, but not Sacrifice the security of other countries to seek their own so-called absolute security. ” [17] This position reflects the above special properties of cyberspace governance. As a result, the international community has gradually realized that no one can dominate the process of cyberspace governance. First, the US cyberspace strategy adjustment and ICANN internationalization will drive a major transformation of the cyberspace governance architecture. Facing the pressure, the United States by part of the Internet to give up the key resources of direct control, for its network space to adjust the international strategy to prepare. [18] On March 14, 2014, NTIA, a subsidiary of the US Department of Commerce, announced that it would give up control of ICANN and pointed out in its transfer statement that ICANN’s management would organize global multi-stakeholder discussions on receiving issues, but explicitly United Nations or other intergovernmental organizations. [19] ICANN has been seeking its own independent position since its inception, and ICANN’s internationalization goal is not only to get rid of the constraints of the US government, but also to ensure that the US government will not be taken over by other countries and intergovernmental organizations. Therefore, ICANN needs to reach an agreement with the US government to ensure their independence, but also with other governments to start a game, to avoid its internationalization was strongly opposed. Second, the role of the United Nations in cyberspace governance continues to improve, will effectively promote the network space management structure and norms of the pace of construction. Through the efforts of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security (GGE), the international community has also made important breakthroughs in cyberspace codes of conduct and confidence-building measures. In June 2013, the United Nations published a report of the Group of Experts, composed of representatives of 15 countries. The report clarifies for the first time that “national sovereignty and sovereign international norms and principles apply to national communications technology activities and the jurisdiction of the State in its territory for communications technology infrastructure.” At the same time, the report further recognizes the Charter of the United Nations In the applicability of cyberspace “. [20] “While efforts to address the security of communications technology, States must respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.” [21] Compared with the 2010 expert group report, the above contents were presented as sections 20 and 21 of the 2013 report, which is a significant improvement in the compatibility of information developed countries and information developing countries in cyberspace governance Sex continues to improve.
In July 2015, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on the Development of Information and Telecommunications from the Perspective of International Security published a third report on the Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. This report has reached a consensus on the protection of cyberspace-critical infrastructure, confidence-building measures, and international cooperation. The network sovereignty of the developing countries is further clarified, and the application of international law, especially the law of armed conflict, which is advocated by the developed countries, is also included in the application of cyberspace. [22] Finally, the competition and cooperation model between government and non-state actors in cyberspace governance will undergo a major change, and multi-level game will become the “new normal” of cyberspace governance. In terms of governance and path, countries’ policy positions in cyberspace governance also place greater emphasis on reality, especially in dealing with the relationship between government and other actors. All parties are aware that the responsibilities of the government and other actors should be divided according to the problems in cyberspace governance. For the multi-stakeholder governance model, the information developed countries and information development countries gradually unified awareness, the government and the private sector, civil society according to their respective functions to participate in cyberspace governance. The narrowing of cognition means that one party is more aware of the concerns of the other party. The game between the developed countries and the developing countries in cyberspace governance will be more targeted, and competition and cooperation will be carried out synchronously to promote cooperation through competition. Of course, this has increased the investment in cyberspace, and the increase in the right to speak on cyberspace governance. Brazil, China has established a network space multi-stakeholder meeting (NetMundial) and the World Internet Conference mechanism to explore the network and national security, network sovereignty and other core issues, the voice of developing countries will be more and more, more and more Big. Third, the evolution of the concept of cyberspace governance <a In the information developed countries and information development countries, governments, the private sector and civil society around the network space governance game from conflict to integration behind, reflecting the continuous evolution of the concept of cyberspace governance. Although the game around cyberspace governance is mainly to compete for the power and wealth of cyberspace, the different cognition of actors, objects and methods of governance has had an important influence on the conflict and fusion of governance. Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer, pointed out at the 7th China-US Internet forum that “the misunderstanding of cyberspace in both China and the United States is largely due to ‘Internet governance’ and ‘ ‘Cyberspace governance’ caused by the confusion of the two concepts. [23] Similarly, cyberspace governance game and conflict also reflect the conflict between the two governance concepts. Internet governance is considered to be a multi-stakeholder governance model that is dominated by non-governmental actors, but cyberspace governance also requires the participation and coordination of government and intergovernmental organizations. Internet Governance Project (Internet Governance Project, IGP) defines Internet governance as a network-related decision that is linked by an Internet protocol, including the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism for policies, rules, and technical standards that are common to the owner, operator, developer, and user. Distribution and global Internet standards of human behavior. “[24] The above definition includes three aspects, namely the acceptance and recognition of technical standards and agreements, the allocation of Internet resources such as domain names and IP addresses, spam generated by human Internet behavior, Cybercrime, copyright and trademark disputes, consumer protection issues, public sector and private security issues, rules and policies. Laura DeNardis (Laura DeNardis) proposed to be in accordance with the Internet transmission TCP / IP protocol level, and according to different levels of different functions to build Internet mode, based on the function, tasks and actors were discussed Internet resource control, standard settings , Network access, network security management, information flow, intellectual property protection and other six levels of Internet governance content. [25] Cyberspace governance has shifted from the professional and technical fields that have been emphasized by the original Internet governance to a wider range of political, security and economic sectors, and the importance of government and intergovernmental organizations in cyberspace governance has become increasingly prominent. Cyberspace is a broader field that includes not only the Internet, but also the data that is transmitted in the network, the users of the network, and the interaction between real society and virtual society. The corresponding cyberspace governance is a broader concept, which is “a category of cyberspace infrastructure, standards, law, social culture, economy, development and so on.” [26] It contains more diverse governance issues and challenges that are increasing. Such as the “Prism Gate Incident”, the government’s high-level threat (APT) due to network action in cyberspace, the Digital Divide and Data Poverty ), Cyber ​​terrorism, online business theft and more and more governance issues have gone beyond the scope of the traditional concept of Internet governance. <A The conflict between “global public domain” and “network sovereignty”, “network autonomy” and “state dominance” in cyberspace governance game reflects that people can not understand “Internet governance” and “network Space governance “between the different governance subjects, objects and methods, trying to use a single governance approach to solve the multiple issues. The bottom-up, open and transparent governance model, which is advocated by the Internet governance subject represented by ICANN, is concerned with the high risk of cyber warfare, large-scale data monitoring and theft, and cyber terrorism. Lack of effectiveness and relevance. At the same time, the state-centered, top-down cyberspace governance philosophy can not effectively deal with the real problems of the current Internet governance and can not replace the dominance of Internet international organizations in the field. With the advance of the network space management process, the two governance ideas and methods in the collision also began to integrate. Joseph Chennai believes that cyberspace is composed of multiple governance mechanisms, in which Internet governance focuses on the technical level and is a subset of cyberspace governance. Should be based on different governance issues, to build a different governance mechanism, so that different actors to play a leading role. [27] The integration of governance concepts is also reflected in the increasing consensus among the parties on the multi-stakeholder governance model. ICANN uses a bottom-up, consensus-based decision-making process that advocates a governance model that limits the role of government. [28] Many developing countries initially opposed the multi-stakeholder governance model, stressing that government-led multilateral governance models should be adopted. With the deepening of the governance process, the information-developing countries have gradually accepted the multi-stakeholder governance model, which is gaining more and more consensus in the private sector and civil society as long as the role of the government is well reflected. The government, the private sector and the civil society participate in the decision-making process according to their respective functions and responsibilities, do not deliberately exclude other actors, nor deliberately pursue the leadership of individual actors, reflecting a more objective and balanced approach to cyberspace governance. Fourth, China’s strategic response <a The Chinese government has put forward the two goals of global governance of cyberspace, namely, to build a peaceful, safe, open and cooperative cyberspace and to establish a multilateral, democratic and transparent international Internet governance system. Important strategic objectives into the “thirteen five” plan recommendations. The former advocates foreign participation in the international network space management process, in order to establish a favorable international governance system; the latter advocates the development of network technology, nurture the network industry, enhance the national network strength. The mutual support and mutual promotion between the two requires an international strategy that can co-ordinate internal and external situations in response to complex cyberspace. Although the Chinese government has not published a specific international cyberspace strategy document, but by analyzing the existing relevant policies, can still be found in China’s international strategy of cyberspace is still in the exploratory stage. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze and discuss the international strategy of cyberspace in China according to the characteristics of cyberspace power game and the strategy of network power. (A) China’s cyberspace international policy practice Since 1994 access to the Internet, China has developed a variety of forms of international network policy into the international network space system. This aspect is to expand the needs of opening up, hope that through international cooperation in learning, the introduction of foreign advanced technical standards; the other is the driving force of information technology, integration into the globalization must be all-round participation in the international system. [29] In addition, with China’s growing influence in international affairs and increased dependence on the network, active participation in cyberspace governance is also an important way to maintain national interests and ways. China’s network policy is largely influenced by the situation of international cyberspace governance and developed and promoted in the interaction with the international cyberspace management system, showing the characteristics of multi-domain, multi-level and multi-subject. <A First, the international policy of the Chinese government network covers international cooperation in international technical standards, information and communication technology industry cooperation, global Internet governance, combating cybercrime, network economy, digital divide and other fields, and the development trend of global network governance Generally consistent. First of all, from the early technology, industry and Internet standards to gradually expand the cooperation to a wider range of network-related policy cooperation, many policy areas in fact beyond the scope of the Internet itself, and international economic, political and security. Secondly, after the “prism door incident”, with the cyberspace security governance become the main issue in governance, the focus of China’s network policy is also focused on the network security governance, and based on the establishment of national security, political security, Safety and social security. China not only vigorously oppose large-scale network monitoring in the international arena, advocate the maintenance of national network sovereignty, but also pay more attention to the legislative work related to cybersecurity in domestic policy and maintain national security and sovereignty in practice. Second, China’s cyberspace international policy covers bilateral, regional, multilateral and international levels. From the bilateral level, China has established intergovernmental dialogue and cooperation mechanisms with countries such as South Korea, Britain and Australia. These cooperation not only covers the contents of network security, digital economy and development, but also become an important content and support for bilateral diplomatic relations. In addition, China and the United States, between China and Russia in the field of network security to carry out a different degree of confidence-building measures (Confidence Building Measures, CBMs). [30] At the regional level, China and ASEAN, the SCO, the European Union, the Arab League and other regional organizations and countries to establish a variety of forms of network dialogue and cooperation mechanism. In 2009, the Chinese government signed the Cooperation Framework of the China-ASEAN Telecommunications Regulatory Commission on Network Security and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Safeguarding International Information Security of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and ASEAN Member States. [31] China also actively participated in the work of the ASEAN Regional Network Security Working Group, and in September 2013 held in Beijing, the ASEAN Regional Forum “to strengthen the network security measures seminar – legal and cultural perspective.” Conference development The development of the Internet requires the guidance of legal rules and the need to promote and respect cultural diversity. All parties should strengthen exchanges in the field of cybersecurity, promote mutual trust, promote cooperation and jointly build peace, security, openness and cooperation. [32] Finally, China is also actively involved in the multilateral and international level of cyberspace governance mechanisms, both within the United Nations Framework for Information Security, the International Telecommunication Union, the World Summit on the Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum, or the United Nations Framework London process, cyberspace multi-stakeholder meetings and other mechanisms, China is the main participant; in addition, China also through the World Internet Conference to carry out cyber space home diplomacy. China has also submitted two versions of the International Code of Conduct for Information Security to the United Nations General Assembly, together with representatives of OECD countries such as Russia and Uzbekistan. [33] China is also a major participant in the Global Internet Governance Consortium, where the head of the National Internet Information Office (NYSE), Lu Wei and Alibaba Group Chairman Ma, was elected as a member of the Alliance. <A Third, with the cyberspace governance covered by more and more widely, China’s cyberspace international policy to participate in the main body from the traditional Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Industry and further expanded to the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and the new The establishment of the network letter Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set up a “network affairs office” to deal with cyberspace of foreign affairs. Among them, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is mainly responsible for bilateral, regional, multilateral and international level of network diplomacy, it is China’s docking under the framework of the United Nations network governance mechanism of the main forces, especially from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs arms control officials throughout the four United Nations information security Working Group of Experts. Net letter office as the central network security and information leading group of permanent institutions, China is to co-ordinate the network security and information management of the newly established important institutions. Since the role of network management as a co-ordination and coordination of China’s network affairs is becoming more and more important in the international policy of the network, it has not only carried out multi-level international network security and digital economic cooperation, but also established the governance mechanism of the World Internet Conference.
In addition, the Ministry of Public Security in the fight against cyber security crime, network anti-terrorism, the Ministry of Commerce in the information and communication technology market access, the Ministry of Finance in the network infrastructure external assistance and other areas of work will be China’s future implementation of cyberspace international strategy a solid foundation. It can be seen that China has formed a more comprehensive and in-depth international strategic framework of cyberspace, including pluralistic participant, wide-ranging problem coverage and multi-level participation path, which laid a good foundation for the international strategic construction of cyberspace governance basis. With the development of China from the network power to the network power, China will establish a comprehensive and perfect international strategy of cyberspace. (2) Challenges in the international strategy of cyberspace The evolution of cyberspace governance has brought many challenges to China’s cyberspace international strategy: First, the information developed countries will continue to dominate the network space governance game, which is the network of China The international strategy of space poses a challenge; the second is due to the lack of advanced Internet governance talent, leading to China’s Internet international organization in the serious shortage of the third is the network space governance game to emphasize capacity building (Capacity Building), best practice (Best Practice) And so on, will bring competitive pressure to China. These issues and challenges will have a greater impact on China’s cyberspace international strategy, if handled properly, will have a negative impact on the implementation of the network strategy. <A I = 35> First, the information developed countries continue to dominate the network space governance game direction on China’s international strategic challenges. The global governance of cyberspace is played through various forms of governance, and the construction of the mechanism depends on the negotiation between the actors. The bargaining of the negotiations depends not only on the size of the powers of the actors, but also on the global governance of cyberspace In the agenda set the ability to be closely related. [34] According to Joseph Nye’s definition, the former can be called “hard power”, the latter is “soft power”. [35] The advantages of the developed countries in these two areas are obvious, especially in the mechanism of selective or prioritizing the discussion of cyberspace governance. For example, in cybersecurity governance, the United States relies on its agenda setting capacity to prevent the international community from making large-scale data monitoring a governance agenda, while setting its network economy to focus on priority agendas. In addition, the information developed countries in the establishment of the network of human rights agenda, will focus on the field of freedom, and democracy (one country one vote), equality (the size of the country has the same discourse) and other equally important issues are excluded from the agenda. Not only that, for countries in the “prism door incident” after the request to strengthen the exercise of network sovereignty trend, the United States put forward the “data localization” (Data Localization) this agenda to circumvent the global governance mechanism to discuss network sovereignty. Compared with the information developed countries, information development countries in the agenda setting capacity there is still a big gap, the lack of initiative to set the agenda. In recent years, with China, Brazil, India and other countries have established a variety of cyberspace governance mechanism, emerging powers in the global management of cyberspace in the agenda set the ability to continue to increase. But in general, the gap between China and the information developed countries in governance capacity still exists, and will affect China through international mechanisms to safeguard their own national interests, as well as express their concerns. <
Secondly, due to the lack of advanced cyberspace governance talent, leading to China in the Internet international organizations in the representation of a serious shortage. The trend of cyberspace governance game shows that the control of Internet key resources by international organizations such as ICANN, IETF and other international organizations will not be challenged by government and intergovernmental organizations. As the US government abandons its control over ICANN, the latter will have greater independence. Network space is built on the basis of the Internet, the basis of cyberspace governance is also Internet governance. Therefore, China’s cyberspace international strategy must be in the field of Internet governance to achieve a breakthrough, while enhancing the international organizations in the Internet in the influence and representation. For the majority of developing countries, including China, it is necessary to increase the representation in international organizations such as ICANN, so that more voices from China and other developing countries appear in ICANN. Third, the network space governance game to emphasize the ability to build, best practice and other direction, which will bring China’s severe competitive pressure. The convergence of the cyberspace governance game concept has led to the international community’s focus on cyberspace governance to operational and enforceable areas such as capacity building, best practices, including the provision of network infrastructure to information developing countries and underdeveloped countries; Training in technology, law, and policy related to cyberspace governance; and providing best practices for solving specific problems in cyberspace governance. This is China’s participation in cyberspace governance of the international strategy put forward higher requirements, information developed countries in the field of resources, talent advantage is difficult to shake in the short term, which not only requires the Chinese government to invest more resources, but also China’s Internet companies , Industry associations, legal experts of the common and active participation. (C) China’s strategic thinking of cyberspace governance The basic path of China’s cyberspace international strategy is consistent with the overall macro strategy of China’s integration into the international system and the reform of the international system. [36] In response to the complex cyberspace governance game, China on the one hand to strengthen capacity-building, and focus on the ability to participate in the global control of cyberspace influence; the other hand, between the network security and openness to seek a balance, International cyberspace to establish their own legitimate rights and interests, to avoid the negative impact of excessive security; and strengthen the network strategy and cyberspace international strategy between the strategic interaction, the formation of mutually supportive cyberspace strategy system. <A I = 40> First, combined with the new and future development of cyberspace governance, to strengthen the shaping of international mechanisms. In the cyber space global governance level, the struggle around the governance platform is becoming increasingly fierce. Including the Internet forum, the International Telecommunication Union, the London process, the Brazilian cyberspace multi-stakeholder meeting and China’s World Internet Congress, all platforms have their dominant forces, actors involved in the subject matter and the impact of the play Are not the same. China should explore ways to enhance its own capacity-building programs to the international community in the areas of cybersecurity, cybercrime, capacity building, network economy, cyber culture and the digital divide, in conjunction with the World Internet Forum and other cyberspace governance mechanisms involved. Good practice and solutions such as the ability of public goods. Second, focus on training to participate in cyberspace governance of international talent.
Internet governance organizations are mostly non-governmental organizations, and their multi-stakeholder governance model usually requires the selection of senior management personnel from the Internet community, and the corresponding high-level management, based on the contribution of the selection object to Internet technology and governance Management positions, rather than a traditional intergovernmental organization of a country or vote in accordance with the population, economic ratio to allocate places. In the case of ICANN, its existing management structure is comprised of the Board of Directors and three support organizations, three advisory committees and two technical advisory bodies. The Board consists of 16 voting members and 5 non-voting liaison officers, with the exception of the ICANN President, the remaining 15 places from the Supporting Organizations, the General Members Advisory Committee, the Regional General Membership Organization and the Nominating Committee. To be elected as a member of the voting, must pass the bottom-up nomination and election. Therefore, China should rationalize the system and mechanism, and actively to ICANN and other international non-governmental organizations to transport talent to encourage Internet companies, industry organizations and academic institutions to actively participate in ICANN, IETF, Internet Architecture Board (Internet Architecture Board, IAB) and other institutions to select the talent in order to enhance the international organizations in the Internet in the representation and voice, and to improve China’s influence on Internet governance. Third, to strengthen the network strategy and cyberspace international strategy between the strategic interaction. China has put forward the strategy of strengthening the network power in the “13th Five-Year Plan”, and proceeded from five aspects: technological innovation, network culture, network infrastructure, network security and information construction and international cooperation. [37] Network power strategy has repeatedly referred to the opening up, and actively participate in the Internet governance, and even international cooperation as a separate chapter. This shows that the international strategy of cyberspace and network power strategy between the integration of mutual support. The effective interaction between the two is related to China’s openness to cyberspace, the relationship between security and development. From the perspective of the two-tier game, any country’s strategy is faced with the external situation and the internal interests of the double constraints, excessive emphasis on openness or security are not conducive to the overall national security and interests. Strengthening the interaction between the network strategy and the international strategy of cyberspace helps to improve the awareness of the decision-makers on the security and opening of cyberspace, the security of cyberspace, the development and the relationship between opening and breaking, Consistent with the objective laws of the policy. From a technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy.
At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy.

 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

簡介
全球網絡空間治理進程不僅涉及信息發達國家與信息發展中國家在互聯網關鍵資源、網絡權力和網絡安全等領域的複雜博弈,還包括政府、私營部門和市民社會等行為體之間的相互博弈。 “棱鏡門事件”在加劇網絡空間治理博弈的同時,也推動各方政策立場持續調整,增加了治理合作的可能性。與此同時,網絡空間領域的博弈也反映出互聯網治理與網絡空間治理等相關治理理念的相互衝突與相互融合趨勢。目前,中國在全球網絡空間治理上的參與仍面臨諸多挑戰。中國需要以網絡空間博弈的發展趨勢和治理理念的演進為基礎,結合“十三五”規劃提出的網絡強國戰略,以國際機制塑造、人才培養及技術發展等為核心建構長遠、完備和全面的參與戰略。
正文
2013年6月,美國國家安全局(NSA)前僱員愛德華·斯諾登披露了該局的“棱鏡”監聽項目。該事件[①] 使網絡空間治理在國際議程中的優先次序再度提升,但也加劇了各方立場的分化,導致網絡空間治理陷入困境,為網絡空間治理的建章立制帶來極大挑戰。另外,國際社會對網絡空間及其治理的複雜性缺乏清晰、統一的認知,由此而造成的片面立場和單一政策進一步加劇了治理困境。面對上述複雜情勢,約瑟夫·奈(Joseph Nye)試圖通過借鑒環境治理領域的機制複合體理論來解釋網絡空間治理的實踐,通過多個不同的治理機制組成的鬆散耦合複合體來分析網絡空間治理。 [②] 這為分析網絡空間治理形勢提供了一個有益的視角,即網絡空間治理是由多個而非單一的治理機制組成,各種機制之間的相互作用對治理產生影響。本文擬從更加宏觀的視角來審視網絡空間治理髮展的進程,並試圖探索網絡空間博弈背後的理念演變,同時分析政府、私營部門、公民社會等治理行為體在國際、國內兩個層面的複雜關係。在此基礎之上,探討中國的應對措施和參與網絡空間治理的戰略。

一、網絡空間治理的力量博弈

網絡空間治理的進程伴隨著各國政府之間的博弈過程。根據各國政府在網絡技術、網絡能力和網絡使用度等方面的情況,可以將其劃分為信息發達國家、信息發展中國家和信息不發達國家三類。 [③] 也有國際組織以網絡就緒度(Readiness)為指標衡量各國的信息化程度。這種排名基本上與傳統的發達、發展中以及不發達國家的三分法相重疊,當然也存在個別發展中國家的信息化水平上升到發達國家行列,或部分發展中國家的信息化水平跌落到不發達國家的水平。因此,按照信息發達國家、發展中國家和不發達國家的三分法來劃分在學術上更加精確。網絡空間治理的力量博弈主要有三個方面:一是信息發達國家與信息發展中國家在網絡權歸屬、網絡資源分配方面的博弈;二是非政府行為體與政府之間就互聯網關鍵資源控制、網絡安全與自由等問題的博弈;三是作為網絡空間中的主導國家,美國政府聯合其境內的私營部門、市民社會與其他國家之間在互聯網關鍵資源歸屬等問題上的博弈(圖1)。

首先,信息發達國家與信息發展中國家圍繞著網絡空間的關鍵基礎設施和網絡技術之間的博弈。根據網絡空間治理領域力量博弈的行為體、議題和特點,可以將其劃分為三個階段。
第一階段是早期的互聯網治理時期,這大致從國際互聯網的形成初期到聯合國召開信息社會世界峰會(World Summit on Information Society, WSIS)為止;該峰會分為2003年日內瓦會議和2005年突尼斯議程兩個階段。信息社會世界峰會表面上表現為各國政府與私營部門和市民社會之間的鬥爭,實質上則是美國與其他國家就互聯網控制權而展開的博弈。
這一時期是互聯網快速發展的階段,大量新的技術及技術標準被創造出來,美國政府藉機大力推動信息技術發展,並製定了一系列國際技術標準、行業和產業規範。而信息發展中國家還處於學習、借鑒階段,這使美國等發達國家在該領域處於絕對強勢地位。 [④] 這一階段的互聯網治理主要圍繞互聯網域名註冊與解析及其相應的13台根服務器控制權、互聯網協議(IP)地址分配等關鍵資源展開爭奪。美國幾乎控制了互聯網標準制定和管理的所有國際組織和核心企業,並拒絕將相關管理職能國際化或交由聯合國專門機構管理。 [⑤] 因此,在信息社會世界峰會上,儘管面臨來自聯合國、信息發展中國家甚至歐洲國家的壓力,美國依然拒絕交出國際互聯網管理權。進入21世紀後,以中國為代表的信息發展中國家的網絡科技力量不斷提升,它們所擁有的域名、用戶等互聯網資源已經超過了信息發達國家,但在互聯網治理中的代表性遠遠不足,因此對現有互聯網治理體現的合法性提出了質疑。
第二階段是網絡空間治理的政治競爭和主權競爭階段,有人稱之為政府在網絡空間的“回歸”階段。這一階段從信息社會世界峰會到2011年。 2011年,中國、俄羅斯等國向第66屆聯大提交了“信息安全國際行為準則”,主張聯合國在網絡空間治理中發揮主導作用。同年,美英等國政府主導的全球網絡空間治理大會(Global Cyber​​space Conference),又稱倫敦進程(London Process)正式召開。
這一階段網絡空間治理博弈的特點是,隨著網絡技術的不斷突破及其對現實社會的顛覆性變革,網絡空間已經成為人類社會的“第五戰略空間”。圍繞網絡空間中秩序、權力與財富的分配,信息發達國家與信息發展中國家在下列問題上產生了嚴重分歧:網絡空間屬性是“全球公域”還是“主權領域”;治理手段是政府主導的“多邊治理”,還是非政府行為體主導的多利益攸關方(Multi-stakeholder)模式;治理文化是西方主導的“一元文化”,還是平等協商的“多元文化”。 [⑥] 這一時期的矛盾焦點還集中體現在信息內容的自由流通領域,希拉里·克林頓就任美國國務卿時,針對互聯網自由發表了多次講話,鼓吹美國的互聯網自由戰略。在始於2010年年底的西亞北非動蕩之中,美國政府與社交媒體網站在背後所扮演的角色引起了信息發展中國家的廣泛關注,並加強了對互聯網的管理。 [⑦]
第三階段從“棱鏡門事件”之後一直到現在,這一階段的競爭更加聚焦網絡空間的安全治理。 “棱鏡門事件”使美國在網絡空間治理領域的道德製高點遭受質疑、領導力下降,迫使其在推動網絡空間治理中放低姿態。與此同時,網絡空間安全形勢進一步惡化,各國面臨的安全威脅進一步加大。在經歷了“棱鏡門事件”初期的激烈對抗之後,信息發達國家與信息發展中國家均意識到維護網絡空間的安全需要各國的共同參與,沒有任何國家可以單獨主導網絡空間治理進程。信息發達國家與信息發展中國家在認知層面的差距逐漸縮小,對抗性舉措減少,合作的空間開始增長。
其次,“棱鏡門事件”引起了政府與私營部門、市民社會之間在網絡安全、公民隱私等問題上的激烈博弈。美國國家安全局前僱員愛德華·斯諾登揭露了一個包括“棱鏡”、“X關鍵分”(X-Keyscore)、“美景”(Fairview)、“核心”(Main core)等近10個監控項目在內的監控體系,該監控體係由國家安全局、中央情報局、聯邦調查局等多個情報機構參與,幾乎覆蓋了網絡空間的社交網絡、郵件、即時通訊、網頁、影片、照片等所有信息。 [⑧] 國家安全局要求微軟、谷歌、臉譜等9家主要全球互聯網企業向監控項目開放數據庫以便開展數據監控。在“棱鏡門事件”曝光後,微軟、谷歌、臉譜等企業向法院公開起訴聯邦政府。 [⑨] 市民社會也紛紛行動起來,反對大規模數據監控。美國市民社會聯盟在網上發起“停止監視我們”(Stop Watch Us)的行動,向美國政府施加壓力,得到數万網民在網站上的簽名、留言及數百個公民團體的響應,他們通過組織遊行示威、向國會請願、發起網絡倡議等方式配合該行動。 [⑩]
在“棱鏡門事件”引發了其他國家對與美國政府合作開展監控項目ICT企業的不滿,各國紛紛採取新的措施保障網絡空間安全。例如,中國政府加快了網絡空間的法制化進程,並開始討論網絡安全設備自主可控的指導思想、制定了網絡安全審查辦法,在先後出台的《國家安全法》、《反恐怖主義法》、 《網絡安全法(草案)》和《刑法修正案(九)》中都大幅增加了涉及網絡安全的條款。這些舉措引起了美國信息通信技術企業的嚴重關切,並遊說美國政府對中國施壓,要求中國政府取消相關規定,如《反恐怖主義法》第十八條中規定“電信業務經營者、互聯網服務提供者應當為公安機關、國家安全機關依法進行防範、調查恐怖活動提供技術接口和解密技術支持和協助”。 [11] 儘管從政府角度看,這些舉措有助於維護網絡安全和國家安全,但在私營部門看來,上述規定的舉措不僅將增加技術上的投入,也會大幅度增加成本。只要網絡空間治理未實現突破,政府與私營部門、市民社會之間的博弈會繼續存在,並在一定程度上將演變為國家間博弈。
最後,美國政府與其境內的私營部門、市民社會之間結盟與其他國家在互聯網關鍵資源歸屬問題上的博弈。互聯網關鍵資源包括:IP地址分配、協議參數註冊、通用頂級域名(gTLD)系統管理,國家和地區頂級域名(ccTLD)系統的管理及根服務器系統的管理和時區數據庫管理等。有學者形像地用掌握網絡空間中的“封疆權”來形容互聯網名稱與數字地址分配機構(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN)在網絡空間治理中的地位。 [12]

由於歷史的原因,這些資源一直由美國國家通信與信息管理局(National Telecommunication and Information Administration, NTIA)下屬的互聯網數字分配機構(Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA)負責管理,NTIA通過定期與ICANN簽訂合同,授權其管理IANA的職能。因此,可以認為美國政府控制著互聯網的關鍵資源。聯合國任命的互聯網治理工作組(WGIG)在報告中指出,美國政府單方面控制著如根區文件在內的互聯網關鍵資源。 [13] 國際社會對這種情況一直不滿,WGIG報告中提出了四種方案以取代既有架構,希望通過政府間組織或全球性機構來接管互聯網關鍵資源。 [14] 對於ICANN來說,雖然一直尋求獨立於美國政府之外並與之開展了多次爭奪,但它更關注的是如何避免其他政府間組織或機構接管或取代其地位。彌爾頓·穆勒將這種現象描述為“一些網絡自由主義者甚而最終轉變成了國家主義的秘密支持者,因為只要被挑戰的國家是他們的祖國,他們就轉而為美國辯護,允許其控制、主導互聯網。”[15]
因此,在一些情況下,ICANN選擇與美國政府“結盟”共同阻止其他國家或政府間組織影響其治理結構。在ICANN的組織架構和決策體制中,各國政府代表所在的政府諮詢委員會(Government Advisory Committee, GAC)只有資格提名一名不具有表決權的聯絡員。信息發展中國家認為,作為一種互聯網治理的國際機制,在ICANN中來自信息發展中國家的代表性不足,在其未來的管理架構中,應當體現政府的職責和權力,增加政府諮詢委員會的權限。但ICANN多次表示不會接受這種改變。對於這種情況,無論是在政府諮詢委員會中,還是在ICANN的全體會議上,美國政府代表與ICANN的官方立場高度一致。直到“棱鏡門事件”爆發,美國政府才迫於多方面壓力宣布重啟ICANN的國際化進程,這將網絡空間治理博弈導向了新的階段。

二、網絡空間治理未來的發展態勢

隨著網絡空間治理進程的推進,各方對網絡空間屬性的認知逐漸達成共識,並由此使其在治理方法、路徑上的分歧縮小​​。特別是在認知層面,各國對網絡空間的認知由基於不同的政治、經濟、文化背景,強調各自的獨特性轉向基於網絡空間的客觀屬性和規律,強調不同觀點之間的融合。 [16] 網絡空間的互聯、共享屬性決定了零和博弈不適用於網絡空間,網絡空間的安全、發展、自由是政府、私營部門和市民社會所追求的共同目標。同時,安全、發展、自由這三個議題的相互制約關係,使得任何一方都不能忽視其他行為體的利益,而追求自身的絕對利益。正如習近平主席2015年12月16日在第二屆世界互聯網大會(World Internet Conference, WIC)開幕式的主題演講中指出:“在信息領域沒有雙重標準,各國都有權維護自己的信息安全,不能一個國家安全而其他國家不安全,一部分國家安全而另一部分國家不安全,更不能犧牲別國安全謀求自身所謂絕對安全”。 [17] 這一立場反映了網絡空間治理的上述特殊屬性。由此,國際社會也逐步意識到,沒有任何一方可以主導網絡空間治理進程。
首先,美國的網絡空間戰略調整與ICANN國際化進程將推動網絡空間治理架構的重大轉型。面臨重重壓力,美國通過部分放棄互聯網關鍵資源的直接控制權,為其網絡空間國際戰略的調整做準備。 [18] 2014年3月14日,美國商務部下屬的NTIA宣布將放棄對ICANN的控制,並在移交聲明中指出,將由ICANN管理層組織全球多利益攸關方討論接收問題,但明確拒絕由聯合國或其他政府間組織接管。 [19] ICANN自成立以來一直在尋求自己的獨立地位,ICANN國際化的目標不僅是要擺脫美國政府的製約,同時還要確保在美國政府放權後,不會被其他國家和政府間組織接管。因此,ICANN既需要與美國政府達成協議以保證自己的獨立性,也要與其他國家政府展開博弈,避免其國際化遭到強烈反對。
其次,聯合國在網絡空間治理中的作用持續提升,將有力地推動網絡空間治理架構和規範的建設步伐。通過聯合國信息安全政府專家組(GGE)的努力,國際社會在網絡空間的行為規範和建立信任措施等方面也取得了重要突破。 2013年6月,聯合國發表了一份由15個國家的代表組成的專家組的報告。報告首次明確了“國家主權和源自主權的國際規範及原則適用於國家進行的通信技術活動,以及國家在其領土內對通信技術基礎設施的管轄權。”同時,報告進一步認可了“聯合國憲章在網絡空間中的適用性”。 [20] “各國在努力處理通信技術安全問題的同時,必須尊重《世界人權宣言》和其他國際文書所載的人權和基本自由。”[21] 與2010年的專家組報告相比,上述內容分別作為2013年報告的第20和21條款出現,這是一個巨大的進步,表明信息發達國家和信息發展中國家在網絡空間治理認知理念的兼容性不斷提高。 2015年7月,聯合國關於從國際安全的角度看信息和電信領域的發展政府專家組公佈了第三份關於網絡空間國家行為準則的報告。這份報告在保護網絡空間關鍵基礎設施、建立信任措施、國際合作等領域達成了原則性共識。信息發展中國家關心的網絡主權進一步得到明確,信息發達國家主張的國際法特別是武裝衝突法在網絡空間中的適用也寫入其中。 [22]
最後,政府與非國家行為體在網絡空間治理中的競爭與合作模式將發生重大轉變,多層次博弈將成為網絡空間治理的“新常態”。在治理方式和路徑方面,各國在網絡空間治理中的政策立場也更強調從實際出發,特別是在處理政府與其他行為體的關係上。各方都意識到應當根據網絡空間治理中的問題來劃分政府與其他行為體的職責。對於多利益攸關方治理模式,信息發達國家與信息發展中國家的認知逐步統一,政府與私營部門、市民社會根據各自的職能參與網絡空間治理。認知縮小意味著一方對另一方的關切更加了解,信息發達國家與信息發展中國家在網絡空間治理中的博弈將更具針對性,表現為競爭與合作同步進行,以競爭促進合作。當然,這與信息發展中國家加大了對網絡空間建章立制的投入,在網絡空間治理的話語權上的增長有關。巴西、中國先後建立了網絡空間多利益攸關方會議(NetMundial)和世界互聯網大會機制,探討網絡與國家安全、網絡主權等核心問題,信息發展中國家的聲音將越來越多、越來越大。

三、網絡空間治理的理念演變

在信息發達國家與信息發展中國家,政府、私營部門和市民社會等圍繞網絡空間治理的博弈從衝突轉向融合的背後,反映了網絡空間治理理念的持續演變。儘管圍繞網絡空間治理的博弈主要是為了爭奪網絡空間的權力與財富,但行為體對治理的主體、客體和方法的不同認知對治理的衝突與融合產生了重要影響。微軟首席研究及戰略官克瑞格·蒙迪(Craig Mundie)在第七屆中美互聯網論壇上就曾指出,“中美雙方在網絡空間的誤解很大程度上是由於對’互聯網治理’和’網絡空間治理’兩個概念的混淆所導致”。 [23] 同樣,網絡空間治理博弈和衝突也反映了上述兩種治理概念之間的衝突。
互聯網治理被認為屬於一種由非政府行為體主導的多利益攸關方治理模式,但網絡空間治理也需要政府和政府間組織的參與和協調。互聯網治理項目(Internet Governance Project, IGP)將互聯網治理定義為“所有者、運營商、開發者和用戶共同參與的一個由互聯網協議所聯接起來的與網絡相關的決策,包括確立政策、規則和技術標準的爭端解決機制,制定資源分配和全球互聯網中人類行為的標準。”[24] 上述定義包括三個方面,即技術標準和協議的接受和認可,域名和IP地址等互聯網資源的分配,人類的互聯網行為產生的垃圾郵件、網絡犯罪、版權和商標爭議、消費者保護問題、公共部門和私人的安全問題等相關的規定、規則和政策等。勞拉·迪娜尼斯(Laura DeNardis)提出要按照互聯網傳輸的TCP/IP協議的層級,並根據不同層級的不同功能構建互聯網模式,依據功能、任務和行為體分別討論互聯網資源控制、標准設定、網絡接入、網絡安全治理、信息流動、知識產權保護等六個層面的互聯網治理內容。 [25]
網絡空間治理從原先互聯網治理所強調的專業性、技術性領域轉向更廣泛的政治、安全和經濟範疇,政府和政府間組織在網絡空間治理中的重要性也日益凸顯。網絡空間是一個更廣泛的領域,它不僅包括互聯網,還包括網絡中傳輸的數據,網絡的用戶以及現實社會與虛擬社會的交互等。相對應的網絡空間治理則是一個更加寬泛的概念,它是“包括網絡空間基礎設施、標準、法律、社會文化、經濟、發展等多方面內容的一個範疇”。 [26] 它所包含的治理議題更加多元,面臨的挑戰也在不斷增加。如“棱鏡門事件”引發的對大規模數據監控的關注、政府在網絡空間開展的網絡行動導致的高持續性威脅(APT)、全球範圍內的數字鴻溝(Digital Divide)與數據貧困(Data Poverty )、網絡恐怖主義、網絡商業竊密等越來越多的治理議題已經超越了傳統的互聯網治理理念的範疇。
網絡空間治理博弈中涉及的“全球公域”與“網絡主權”、“網絡自治”與“國家主導”等衝突反映出人們未能客觀、正確地理解“互聯網治理”與“網絡空間治理”之間不同的治理主體、客體和方法,試圖用單一的治理方法去解決其中的多元議題。以ICANN為代表的互聯網治理主體所推崇的自下而上、公開透明的治理模式,對於國家在應對網絡戰、大規模數據監控、竊密等高可持續性威脅、網絡恐怖主義等問題而言,缺乏有效性和針對性。與此同時,以國家為中心、自上而下的網絡空間治理理念也無法有效應對當前國際互聯網治理的現實問題,不能取代互聯網國際組織在該領域的主導地位。
隨著網絡空間治理進程的推進,上述兩種治理理念和方法在碰撞中也開始不斷融合。約瑟夫·奈認為,網絡空間是由多個治理機制組成,其中互聯網治理聚焦於技術層面,是網絡空間治理的一個子集。應當根據不同的治理議題,構建不同的治理機制,讓不同的行為體來發揮主導作用。 [27] 治理觀念的融合還表現在各方對多利益攸關方治理模式共識的增加。 ICANN採用的是一種自下而上、基於共識基礎的決策過程,並主張限制政府作用的治理模式。 [28] 很多信息發展中國家最初對多利益攸關方治理模式持反對態度,強調應當採用政府主導的多邊治理模式。隨著治理進程的深入,信息發展中國家逐步接受多利益攸關方治理模式,只要政府的作用得到合理體現,這種觀點也在私營部門和市民社會代表中獲得越來越多的共識。政府、私營部門和市民社會根據各自的功能與責任來參與決策過程,不刻意將其他行為體排除在外,也不刻意追求個別行為體的領導權,體現出更加客觀和平衡的網絡空間治理理念。

四、中國的戰略應對

中國政府提出了網絡空間全球治理的兩大目標,即共同構建和平、安全、開放、合作的網絡空間和建立多邊、民主、透明的國際互聯網治理體系,同時還將網絡強國戰略作為重要戰略目標納入“十三五”規劃建議中。前者主張對外參與國際網絡空間治理進程,以此來建立有利的國際治理體系;後者主張發展網絡技術力量,培育網絡產業,增強國家網絡實力。兩者之間的相互支持和相互促進需要有一個能夠統籌內外、應對複雜網絡空間形勢的國際戰略。儘管中國政府並未公佈具體的網絡空間國際戰略文件,但通過分析現有的相關政策,仍可以發現中國的網絡空間國際戰略還處於摸索階段。因此,有必要對照網絡空間力量博弈的特點和網絡強國戰略來分析和探討中國的網絡空間國際戰略。
(一)中國網絡空間國際政策實踐
自1994年接入國際互聯網起,中國就制定了各種形式的網絡國際政策融入國際網絡空間體系。這一方面是擴大開放的需要,希望通過國際合作學習、引進國外先進的技術標準;另一方面是信息技術的驅動,融入全球化必須要全方位參與國際體系。 [29] 此外,隨著中國在國際事務中的影響力越來越大以及對網絡的依存度上升,主動參與網絡空間治理也是維護國家利益的重要路徑和方式。中國的網絡政策在很大程度上受到國際網絡空間治理形勢的影響,並在與國際網絡空間治理制度的互動中得到發展和提升,呈現出多領域、多層次和多主體的特點。
第一,中國政府網絡國際政策覆蓋了國際技術標準合作、信息通信技術產業合作、全球互聯網治理、打擊網絡犯罪、網絡經濟、數字鴻溝等多個領域,與全球網絡治理的發展趨勢總體上保持一致。首先,從早期的技術、產業和互聯網標準的合作逐步拓展至更加廣泛的網絡相關政策合作,很多政策領域實際上已經超出了互聯網本身的範疇,與國際經濟、政治、安全相結合。其次,“棱鏡門事件”之後,隨著網絡空間安全治理成為治理中的主要議題,中國網絡政策的關注點也相應聚焦於網絡安全治理,及建立在此基礎上的國家安全、政治安全、經濟安全和社會安全。中國不僅在國際上大力反對大規模網絡監控,提倡維護國家網絡主權,而且在國內政策上也更加註重與網絡安全相關的立法工作,在實踐中維護國家安全和主權。
第二,中國的網絡空間國際政策覆蓋了雙邊、地區、多邊和國際等多個層級。從雙邊層面來看,中國與韓國、英國、澳大利亞等國家建立了政府間對話合作機制,這些合作不僅覆蓋網絡安全、數字經濟和發展等內容,還成為雙邊外交關係的重要內容和支撐。此外,中美、中俄之間在網絡安全領域開展了不同程度的建立信任措施(Confidence Building Measures, CBMs)。 [30] 在地區層面,中國與東盟、上合組織、歐盟、阿盟等地區組織和國家之間建立了多種形式的網絡對話合作機制。 2009年中國政府分別與東盟和上合組織成員國簽訂了《中國—東盟電信監管理事會關於網絡安全問題的合作框架》和《上合組織成員國保障國際信息安全政府間合作協定》。 [31] 中國還積極參與東盟地區論壇網絡安全工作組的工作,並於2013年9月在北京召開了東盟地區論壇“加強網絡安全措施研討會——法律和文化視角”。會議倡議互聯網的發展需要法律規則的引領,也需要促進和尊重文化多樣性,各方應在網絡安全領域加強交流、增進互信、推進合作,共同構建和平、安全、開放、合作的網絡空間。 [32] 最後,中國還積極參與多邊和國際層面的網絡空間治理機制,無論是聯合國框架下的信息安全政府專家組、國際電信聯盟、信息社會世界峰會、互聯網治理論壇,還是聯合國框架之外的倫敦進程、網絡空間多利益攸關方會議等機制,中國都是主要參與者;此外,中國還通過召開世界互聯網大會來開展網絡空間的主場外交。中國還與俄羅斯、烏茲別克斯坦等上合組織成員國共同向聯合國大會提交了兩個版本的“信息安全國際行為準則”。 [33] 中國也是全球互聯網治理聯盟的主要參與方,國家互聯網信息辦公室(網信辦)主任魯煒和阿里巴巴集團董事局主席馬雲當選為該聯盟的委員。
第三,隨著網絡空間治理所覆蓋的內容越來越廣泛,中國網絡空間國際政策參與的主體也從傳統的外交部、工信部進一步擴展到公安部、商務部、財政部以及新成立的網信辦,外交部專門設立了“網絡事務辦公室”來應對網絡空間的外交事務。其中,外交部主要負責雙邊、地區、多邊和國際層面的網絡外交工作,它還是中國對接聯合國框架下網絡治理機制的主要力量,特別是來自外交部軍控司的官員全程參與四屆聯合國信息安全專家組的工作。網信辦作為中央網絡安全與信息化領導小組的常設機構,是中國為了統籌應對網絡安全與信息化新設立的重要機構。網信辦作為統籌、協調中國網絡事務的機構在網絡國際政策中的角色越來越重要,不僅開展了多層級的國際網絡安全與數字經濟合作,還建立了世界互聯網大會治理機制。此外,公安部在打擊網絡安全犯罪、網絡反恐,商務部在信息通信技術市場准入,財政部在網絡基礎設施對外援助等領域的工作都將是中國今後實施網絡空間國際戰略的堅實基礎。
由此可見,中國已經形成了一個較為全面、深入的網絡空間國際戰略架構,包括多元的參與主體、寬領域的議題覆蓋和多層級的參與路徑,這為網絡空間治理的國際戰略構建奠定了良好基礎。伴隨著中國從網絡大國向網絡強國的發展,中國將會建立一個全面、完善的網絡空間國際戰略。
(二)網絡空間國際戰略面臨的挑戰
網絡空間治理的力量博弈變化給中國的網絡空間國際戰略帶來了多重挑戰:一是信息發達國家將繼續主導網絡空間治理博弈的方向,這對中國的網絡空間國際戰略構成挑戰;二是由於缺乏高級互聯網治理人才,導致中國在互聯網國際組織中的代表性嚴重不足;三是網絡空間治理博弈轉向強調能力建設(Capacity Building)、最佳實踐(Best Practice)等方向,將給中國帶來競爭壓力。這些問題和挑戰對中國網絡空間國際戰略將產生較大衝擊,若處理不當,會對網絡強國戰略的實施造成負面影響。
第一,信息發達國家繼續主導網絡空間治理博弈方向對中國國際戰略構成的挑戰。網絡空間全球治理是通過各種形式的治理機制發揮作用,機制的構建取決於各行為體之間的談判,談判的籌碼不僅取決於各行為體的權力大小,還與各方在網絡空間全球治理中的議程設置能力息息相關。 [34] 按照約瑟夫·奈的定義,前者可稱之為“硬權力”,後者是“軟權力”。 [35] 信息發達國家在這兩個領域的優勢明顯,特別是在通過選擇性或者優先設置議程左右網絡空間治理的機制構建。比如在網絡安全治理中,美國依靠其議程設置能力阻止國際社會將大規模數據監控列為治理議程,同時將其重點關切的網絡經濟竊密設置為優先議程。此外,信息發達國家在設置網絡人權議程時,將重點置於自由領域,而民主(一國一票)、平等(大小國家擁有同等話語權)等同樣重要的議題則被排除在議程之外。不僅如此,對於各國在“棱鏡門事件”後要求加強行使網絡主權的趨勢,美國則提出“數據本地化”(Data Localization)這一議程以規避在全球治理機制中討論網絡主權。與信息發達國家相比,信息發展中國家在議程設置能力上還存在較大差距,缺乏主動設置議程的能力。近年來,隨著中國、巴西、印度等國先後建立了各種網絡空間治理機制,新興大國在網絡空間全球治理中的議程設置能力不斷增強。但總體而言,中國與信息發達國家在治理能力方面的差距依舊存在,並將影響中國通過國際機制維護自身國家利益,以及表達自身關切。

第二,由于缺乏高级网络空间治理人才,导致中国在互联网国际组织中的代表性严重不足。网络空间治理博弈的趋势表明,ICANN、IETF等国际组织对互联网关键资源的控制权不会受到政府和政府间组织的挑战。随着美国政府放弃对ICANN的控制权,后者将具有更大的独立性。网络空间建立在互联网基础之上,网络空间治理的基础也是互联网治理。因此,中国的网络空间国际战略必须要在互联网治理领域实现突破,同时提升在互联网国际组织中的影响力和代表性。对包括中国在内的广大信息发展中国家而言,必须增加在ICANN等国际组织中的代表性,让更多来自中国和其他发展中国家的声音出现在ICANN中。
第三,网络空间治理博弈转向强调能力建设、最佳实践等方向,这将给中国带来严峻的竞争压力。网络空间治理博弈理念的融合使得国际社会对网络空间治理的焦点转向了能力建设、最佳实践等可操作和可落实的领域,包括向信息发展中国家和信息不发达国家提供网络基础设施;提供与网络空间治理相关的技术、法律、政策等人才的培训;提供网络空间治理中遇到的解决各种具体问题的最佳实践。这对于中国参与网络空间治理的国际战略提出了更高的要求,信息发达国家在上述领域的资源优势、人才优势短期内难以撼动,这不仅需要中国政府投入更多资源,也需要中国的互联网企业、行业协会、法律专家的共同和积极参与。
(三)中国参与网络空间治理的战略思路
确立中国网络空间国际战略的基本路径与中国整体对外战略强调的融入国际体系,并推动改革国际体系的宏观目标相一致。[36] 为应对复杂的网络空间治理博弈,中国一方面要加强能力建设,并注重将能力转化为参与网络空间全球治理的影响力;另一方面在网络安全与开放之间寻求平衡,通过参与国际网络空间建章立制来维护自己的合法权益,避免过度安全化带来的负面影响;并加强网络强国战略与网络空间国际战略之间的战略互动,形成相互支持的网络空间战略体系。
第一,结合网络空间治理的新近和未来发展态势,强化对国际机制的塑造能力。在网络空间全球治理层面,围绕治理平台的斗争日趋激烈。包括互联网论坛、国际电信联盟、伦敦进程、巴西网络空间多利益攸关方会议以及中国的世界互联网大会在内,各个平台都有其主导力量,参与的行为体所关注的议题和发挥的影响力均不相同。中国应结合世界互联网论坛以及参与的其他网络空间治理机制,在网络安全、网络犯罪、能力建设、网络经济、网络文化、数字鸿沟等议题中,探索如何提升自身向国际社会提供能力建设方案、最佳实践和解决方案等公共产品的能力。
第二,着重培养参与网络空间治理的国际化人才。国际互联网治理组织多为非政府组织,其采用的多利益攸关方治理模式通常要求从互联网社群中选拔高级管理人才,根据选拔对象对互联网技术、治理所作出的贡献来来担任相应的高级管理职务,而非传统政府间组织的一国一票或按照人口、经济比例来分配名额。以ICANN为例,其现有的管理架构是由董事会和3个支持组织、3个咨询委员会及2个技术咨询机构组成。董事会由16名具有表决权的成员和5名不具有表决权的联络员组成,除ICANN总裁之外,其余15个名额分别来自支持组织、一般会员咨询委员会、区域一般会员组织和提名委员会。要想当选为有投票权的委员,必须要通过自下而上的提名和选举。因此,中国应当理顺体制和机制,积极向ICANN等国际非政府组织输送人才,鼓励互联网企业、行业组织和学术机构积极参与ICANN、IETF、互联网架构委员会(Internet Architecture Board, IAB)等机构的人才选拔,以此来提升在互联网国际组织中的代表性和发言权,并提高中国对互联网治理的影响力。
第三,加强网络强国战略与网络空间国际战略之间的战略互动。中国在“十三五”规划建议中正式提出网络强国战略,并从技术创新、网络文化、网络基础设施、网络安全和信息化建设、国际合作五个方面着手,推进网络强国建设。[37] 网络强国战略中多次提到了对外开放、积极参与国际互联网治理,甚至将国际合作作为单独一章。由此可见,网络空间国际战略与网络强国战略之间相互融合、相互支撑。两者的有效互动,关系到中国对网络空间的开放、安全与发展关系的处理。从双层博弈的角度来看,任何一个国家的战略都面临外部形势和内部利益集团的双重约束,过度强调开放或者安全都不利于整体国家安全和利益。强化网络强国战略与网络空间国际战略之间的互动,有助于提高决策者对于网络空间的安全与开放,网络空间的安全、发展、与开放之间关系的认知,打破双重约束,制定更加符合客观规律的政策。
从技术层面来说,网络强国战略可以更好地为中国参与全球网络空间治理提供支撑。当前网络空间治理的主要竞争已经从认知、理念层面的博弈,转向提供解决方案、最佳实践、能力建设等具体的议题合作领域。缺乏有效的支撑,网络空间国际战略难以持续,并赢得国际社会的认可。与此同时,网络空间国际战略也有助于为网络强国战略营造有利的外部环境、提供外部先进的经验和教训,向国内的ICT企业提供广阔的国际市场。最后,还可借鉴对外援助领域的经验,通过ICT领域的对外援助缓解甚至消除网络空间治理中的数字鸿沟问题,一方面可以为网络空间治理贡献中国力量,另一方面也有助于中国ICT企业的国际化战略.

Original URL: http://www.siis.org.cn/Research/Info/629

 

美軍方憂慮中國信息戰 稱之為毛式網絡人民戰 // US Military Anxious & Worried About China’s Information Warfare – Mao-Style Network War is the People’s Warfare

美軍方憂慮中國信息戰 稱之為毛式網絡人民戰 //

US Military Anxious & Worried About China’s Information Warfare – Mao-Style Network War is the People’s Warfare

This article was originally published in the US Army “Military Intelligence” magazine July 7-9 months. The author Timothy Thomas is the US Army Lieutenant Colonel, now an analyst at the US Foreign Military Research Office (FMSO). The author graduated from the famous West Point military academy, served as the US military 82th Airborne Division unit commander, the information warfare, psychological warfare, low-intensity conflict in-depth study. This paper reflects the American military’s worries and alertness in the theory and construction of China’s information warfare. This article is specially translated for reference only.

In the past few years, the Chinese military and civil experts set off a wave of information warfare. After reading their works, it is not difficult to find that China’s theory of information warfare has several obvious characteristics: First, China is eager to develop its own theory of information warfare, which is related to its own security threats; secondly, China’s information War theory is influenced by its traditional military command art. Whether it is the ancient “Art of War” and “thirty-six”, or Mao Zedong’s people’s war thinking in the theory of information war laid a deep imprint; Third, China’s information warfare awareness and classification, obviously different In the beginning of the information warfare originator – the United States, although similar to the Russian information war theory, but only the shape and God is not.

Wai Wei save Zhao

The advent of the information age prompted people to rethink the way in which war was conducted. China is aware of its conventional armed forces and the superpower compared to the strength of disparity, in the near future, whether conventional or nuclear weapons, China can not constitute a strong deterrent to the United States. However, the ambitious Oriental dragon that: with the advent of the information age, the war form, the military structure, combat methods and command means will have a new change, the information will replace people full of future battlefield. As long as the focus of strategic research into the information warfare war form, grasp the trend of development of the times, it is not difficult to shorten the distance, and further lead.

Ancient China has a military order called “thirty-six dollars”, one of which “Wai Wei save Zhao” pointed out that if the enemy is too strong front power, should avoid the virtual, hit its weakness. For example, if you can not launch a direct attack (nuclear strike), then the information warfare, the weak financial, power, etc., to the West, and so on.

Network system to start. Although the conventional armed forces can not compete with the United States, however, China’s information warfare forces in theory is a real threat to the US political and economic security, the Americans can not afford the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq Stock Exchange in an instant collapse. The global accessibility of information warfare, the speed of light transmission is not a feature of nuclear war, the Chinese people want is the speed of information warfare, accuracy and continuity to beat the opponent.

Information warfare can make up for the lack of conventional armed forces. The establishment of various battlefield information networks can not only improve the management level of traditional warfare, enhance the overall combat effectiveness of the troops, but also to a certain extent make up for the lack of conventional forces. In the eyes of the Chinese people, information warfare is even more powerful, is the power of conventional armed forces multiplier.

Information warfare

In 1996, China’s earliest information warfare expert Shen Weiguang to the information war under the definition is: “warring parties through the control of information and intelligence resources to compete for battlefield initiative of the war.” With the United States “to protect friendly information system, attack enemy information System “compared to the definition of Shen Weiguang more emphasis on” control “the enemy.

In 1998, the Chinese military information warfare Wei Wang Wang save major general classification of information warfare: according to time is divided into normal, crisis, wartime; by nature is divided into attack, defense; by level into the country, strategy, theater, tactics ; Divided by the scale of the battlefield, theater, local war. The characteristics of information warfare include directive and control warfare, intelligence warfare, electronic warfare, psychological warfare, space control war, hacker warfare, virtual warfare, economic warfare and so on. Information warfare in principle to take cut, blinded, transparent, fast and improve the viability and other measures. General Wang’s understanding of the information war is closer to the West, with emphasis on the confrontation of advanced technology.

In 1999, Chinese experts discussed the information warfare. Shen Weiguang at this time to expand the scope of information warfare, he believes that “information war, broadly refers to the confrontation of the military (including political, economic, science and technology and all areas of society) to seize the information space and information resources for the war, narrowly refers to the war Which is one of the essential characteristics of modern warfare.The essence of information war lies in the fact that by acquiring the right to information to achieve ‘no war and subdue the soldiers’. ”

The military another information warfare expert general general Wang Pufeng information warfare have a very deep understanding, in 2000, he information warfare and information warfare distinction. According to his explanation, the information war refers to a form of war, which contains information warfare, and information warfare refers to a combat activity. He believes that “information warfare includes all combat activities, including a series of intrusion and computer virus attacks on the theft, tampering, deception, deception, disruption, obstruction, interference, paralysis of information and information systems, and finally the enemy computer Network does not work. “He advocated China’s information warfare theory in drawing on foreign advanced combat ideas at the same time, should have China’s own characteristics.

“Mao-style network people’s war”

China’s knowledge of information warfare is very traditional. Many military theorists believe that the information age has given Mao Zedong a new connotation of the people’s war thinking, therefore, advocates rely on and mobilize the broad masses of people to carry out online war. It is conceivable that no matter which same family, with 1.3 billion people playing network warfare is daunting.

Mao Zedong’s network The most important feature of the people’s war theory is that it breaks the boundaries between the army and the people. Blurred the traditional boundaries of military installations and civilian facilities, military technology and civilian technology. The sharing of information technology in military and civilian use has created the conditions for the widespread use of civil technology for military purposes. For example, the use of civil electronic information equipment for information interception and transmission can use the civilian communication network for war mobilization; can use the private computer network attack and defense. Second, the difference between military personnel and non-military personnel is gradually disappearing. With the development of network technology and the expansion of application areas, a large number of network technology talent come to the fore. These have the special ability of the network elite will become the future network of people in the war of Gladiator. At the same time, communication, transportation, financial systems and other information networks and international networking, for China to carry out the people’s war provides the necessary conditions.

Nowadays, the idea of ​​people’s war has been established as the fundamental guiding principle of China’s network information warfare. A Chinese military writer wrote: “The flexible tactical and tactical principle is still the soul of the network information warfare.The broad masses of people actively participate in the war, especially technical support and online warfare, is to win the network information war victory of the masses and strength Source. ”

The power of the people’s war is so terrible, perhaps, we can understand why the Chinese are willing to cut the size of their armed forces – imagine that once the war broke out, China could launch a large number of people involved in war, information engineers and civilians will be organized through the home Computer attack on the US network information system, then why should we maintain a large combat force?

Information warfare

Over the past few years, China has held several major information warfare military exercises to test the theory of information warfare. The first “special war” (information warfare) exercise took place in October 1997. A military army of a military army was designed to paralyze its system of virus attacks, the group of military anti-virus software for defense. The exercise is called “invasion and anti-intrusion exercise”. The exercise also used ground logistics, medical and air forces.

In October 1998, China held a high-tech comprehensive exercise jointly conducted by the three military regions. The first use of the “military information superhighway” was used in the joint defense operations. The information network system in the command automation system is composed of digital, dialing, command network and secret channel. The other parts of the command automation system are subsystems such as command warfare, audio and graphics processing, control and data encryption.

In October 1999, the People’s Liberation Army for the first time between the two groups of war-level computer online confrontation exercises. Conducted reconnaissance and anti-reconnaissance, interference and anti-interference, blockade and anti-blockade, air strikes and anti-air raid and other subjects. In the software environment, resource sharing, combat command, situation display, auxiliary evaluation, signal transmission and intelligence warfare and other six types of operations. The computer evaluation system conducts data and quality analysis of the performance of both parties.

In July 2000, a military area also conducted an online confrontation exercise. The three training tasks related to the exercise are: organizing and planning the campaign, seizing air power and making information, implementing breakthroughs and breaking down. There are more than 100 terminal networking involved in the exercise.

Militia unit

China’s people’s war has a complete system, its overall development direction is “elite standing army and powerful reserve forces combined”, this defense system is conducive to play the overall effectiveness of the people’s war and “network tactics” advantage.

China 1.5 million reserve forces are very keen to play the network of people’s war. In some areas, the PLA has prepared the reserve forces into small information warfare forces. For example, in Yichang City, Hubei Province, the military division organized 20 municipal departments (electricity, finance, television, medical, etc.) technical staff set up a reserve information warfare. The Department has a network of war camps, electronic war camps, intelligence war camps and 35 technical units. The department has also established the first training base in China to accommodate 500 people.

Yichang is not the only area where the organization’s reserve and militia are engaged in information warfare training. December 1999 in Xiamen, Fujian held a reserve and militia meeting. During the subsequent exercise, the militia units with high-tech equipment carried out electronic countermeasures, cyber attacks and protection, radar reconnaissance performances. The goal of the fake attack is an encircled island, so it is easy for outsiders to think about being against Taiwan. Xiamen is a special economic zone, bringing together a large number of high-tech talent, so there are advantages of the implementation of information warfare.

In an exercise conducted by the Jinan Military Region, the Xi’an People’s Armed Forces Information Warfare team played the blue side of the attack, and they developed 10 kinds of information warfare measures, including information mine, information reconnaissance, change of network information, release of information bombs, dumping Network spam, distribute web leaflets, information spoofing, spread false information, organize information defense, and establish web spy stations. From these network information warfare can be seen that their research on the network information war has been quite specific and in-depth.

China’s military experts also suggested that all levels of militia organizations should set up network technology professional units, in order to facilitate the coordination of command, militia network technology professional units should be provincial or regional units for the implementation of the group, vertical management. Reserve forces to participate in the future war in the “network attack and defense” and “network technology security”, its actions should be organized by the military organization and unified coordination.

Training base

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army has developed its own set of information warfare education methods, the steps are: first to teach the basic knowledge of network information warfare; secondly through the military’s advanced military thinking to improve the level of information warfare knowledge; and then improve the use of information technology skills, Electronic technology, psychological warfare technology and information attack and defense technology; Finally, through the exercise of knowledge into practical ability. In China, mainly by the People’s Liberation Army institutions to foster information warfare high-tech talent responsibility:

People ‘s Liberation Army Communications Command College, located in Wuhan. In 1998, the hospital published two books, namely, “information combat command and control” and “information combat technology”, these two books is China’s information warfare education the most important teaching materials. The college has a high reputation for its excellent information warfare tutorials, which analyze the information, operational requirements of strategic, operational, and tactical levels.

People’s Liberation Army Information Engineering University, located in Zhengzhou, by the original PLA Information Engineering Institute, Institute of Electronic Technology and Surveying Institute merged. The main research areas of the school are information security, modern communication technology and space technology, and in some cutting-edge disciplines to explore, such as remote sensing information technology, satellite navigation and positioning technology, geographic information database technology.

People’s Liberation Army Polytechnic University, located in Nanjing, by the former People’s Liberation Army Communications Engineering College, Engineering Engineering College, Air Force Meteorological Institute and the General Association of 63 Institute merged. The school is responsible for training information warfare, commanding automation and other new disciplines of military talent. There are nearly 400 experts and professors in the university engaged in information war theory and technology research.

People’s Liberation Army National Defense Science and Technology University, located in Changsha, the school directly under the Central Military Commission. Has developed the famous “Galaxy” series of supercomputers. During the Kosovo war in April-June 1999, nearly 60 senior officers gathered in this study of high-tech wars.

People’s Liberation Army Naval Engineering University, located in Wuhan, is the only naval study of information warfare institutions. The purpose of the school’s information warfare is to apply information technology to naval equipment so that the Chinese navy can adapt to the information war.

in conclusion

What conclusions can we get from the study of information warfare in China? What can the American army get from it?

First of all, China’s military theorists have found a cheap and effective information warfare method, which makes China in the strategic military and international status to obtain the same position with the West, so that China in Asia to play a more important strategic role.

Secondly, China’s attention to the new information warfare forces is extraordinary. It may be possible to develop various forms of information warfare forces, such as: network forces (independent arms), “cyber warriors” raid units, information protection forces, information corps, electronic police and joint networks of people’s war institutions. It is interesting to note that Western countries, not China, have the ability to put these ideas into practice at this stage.

Thirdly, China’s information warfare theory reflects the combination of Western and Chinese ideas, and the influence of the former is getting weaker. Due to some common origins of military command art (Marxist dialectical thinking), China’s information warfare thought is more similar to that of Russia. However, in terms of its essence, China’s information war theory and Russia and the West are different. China’s information war theory emphasizes control, computerized warfare, cyber warfare, intellectual warfare and system of information rights.

Fourth, in the field of information warfare, China has spanned a number of technological developments and has used the Quartet’s technology to save time and save money. However, China does not fully follow the foreign, but the use of creative information war strategy. But no matter what, China is worthy of attention is different from other countries, the power of information.

For the US military, the study of China’s information war theory is not just to give the military a few opinions. “Art of War” called “know that know, victorious”. From the perspective of foreign information warfare theory to analyze the ability of the US information warfare in order to find the fatal flaws of the US information warfare system.

As the Chinese say, the losers of the information warfare are not necessarily behind the technology, and those who lack the art of command and strategic ability are the most likely to be losers. The United States to the reflection of their own information war thinking, and to study the information war strategy and tactical time. (Fan Shengqiu compilation) (“International Outlook”)

China and the latitude and longitude network February 11, 2004

 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

本文原載於美國陸軍《軍事情報》雜誌2003年7-9月號。作者蒂莫西·托馬斯是美國陸軍中校,現為美國外國軍事研究辦公室(FMSO)分析員。作者畢業於著名的西點軍校,曾任美軍第82空降師分隊指揮官,對信息戰、心理戰、低強度衝突有深入的研究。本文反映了美國軍方對中國信息戰理論和建設的憂慮與戒備心理。本刊特編譯此文,僅供讀者參考。
在過去幾年裡,中國軍方與民間專家們掀起了研究信息戰的熱潮。閱讀他們的作品後不難發現,中國的信息戰理論研究具有幾個明顯的特徵:首先,中國正迫不及待地發展自己的信息戰理論,這與其對自身安全威脅的判斷有關;其次,中國的信息戰理論受其傳統軍事指揮藝術影響頗深。無論是古代的《孫子兵法》和《三十六計》,還是毛澤東的人民戰爭思想都在信息戰理論中打下了深深的烙印;第三,中國對信息戰的認知與分類,顯然不同於信息戰的開山鼻祖——美國,雖近似於俄國的信息戰理論,卻也只是形似而神不是。

圍魏救趙
信息時代的到來促使人們對戰爭的進行方式重新進行思索。中國意識到其常規武裝力量與超級大國相比實力懸殊,近期內無論是常規力量還是核武器,中國都無法對美國構成強大威懾。但是,雄心勃勃的東方巨龍認為:隨著信息時代的來臨,戰爭形態、軍隊結構、作戰方式和指揮手段都會有嶄新的變化,信息將取代人充斥於未來戰場。只要把戰略研究的著眼點放到信息戰這一戰爭形態上,把握時代發展潮流,就不難縮短距離,並進一步取得領先地位。
中國古代有部兵書叫《三十六計》,其中的一計“圍魏救趙”就指出,如果敵人正面力量過於強大,應當避實就虛,擊其薄弱之處。中國人古為今用,把這個計謀應用到當前國家間鬥爭——如果你不能發動直接攻擊(核打擊),那就打信息戰,向西方薄弱的金融、電力等

網絡系統下手。常規武裝力量雖然無法與美國抗衡,然而,中國的信息戰部隊在理論上卻實實在在威脅到美國的政治及經濟安全,美國人無法承受紐約股票交易所和納斯達克股票交易所在瞬間崩潰。信息戰的全球可及性、光速傳播性是核戰爭所不具有的特性,中國人要的就是以信息戰的速度、準確性和持續性擊敗對手。
信息戰力量可彌補常規武裝力量的不足。各種戰場信息網絡的建立,不僅可以提高對傳統戰爭的管理水平,增強部隊的整體戰鬥力,還可以在一定程度上彌補常規力量的不足。在中國人眼中,信息戰好似如虎添翼,是常規武裝部隊的力量倍增器。
信息戰智囊
1996年,中國最早提出信息戰的專家沈偉光給信息戰下的定義是:“交戰雙方通過控制信息與情報資源來爭奪戰場主動權的戰爭。”與美國“保護友方信息系統,攻擊敵方信息系統”的定義相比,沈偉光更強調“控制”敵人。
1998年,中國軍方信息戰權威王保存少將對信息戰進行了分類:按時間分為平時、危機時、戰時;按性質分為進攻、防禦;按層次分為國家、戰略、戰區、戰術;按規模分為戰場、戰區、局部戰爭。信息戰表現的特徵包括指揮與控制戰、情報戰、電子戰、心理戰、空間控制戰、黑客戰、虛擬戰、經濟戰等方面的較量。信息戰原則上採取切斷、蒙蔽、透明、快速和提高生存力等措施。王將軍對信息戰的認識與西方較為接近,都把重點放在先進技術的對抗上。
1999年,中國專家對信息戰展開了大討論。沈偉光此時把信息戰的範圍擴大,他認為“信息戰,廣義地指對壘的軍事(也包括政治、經濟、科技及社會一切領域)集團搶占信息空間和爭奪信息資源的戰爭,狹義地指戰爭中交戰雙方在信息領域的對抗。它是現代戰爭的本質特徵之一。信息戰的本質在於通過奪取制信息權達到’不戰而屈人之兵’。”
軍方另一位信息戰專家王普豐少將對信息戰有很深入的理解,2000年,他把信息戰和信息戰爭區別開。根據他的解釋,信息戰爭指的是一種戰爭形態,它包含了信息戰,而信息戰指的是一種作戰活動。他認為“信息戰包括所有作戰活動,其中有對敵信息及信息系統實施信息竊取、篡改、刪除、欺騙、擾亂、阻塞、干擾、癱瘓等一系列的入侵活動和計算機病毒攻擊,最終使敵計算機網絡無法正常工作。”他主張中國的信息戰理論在藉鑒國外先進作戰思想的同時,應具有中國自己的特色。
“毛式網絡人民戰爭”
中國對信息戰的認知非常具有傳統特色。許多軍事理論家認為信息時代賦予了毛澤東人民戰爭思想新的內涵,因此,主張依靠和發動廣大人民群眾進行網上戰爭。可以想像,無論是哪個同家,與13億人打網絡戰都是令人生畏的。
毛澤東式網絡人民戰爭理論的最重要特徵是它打破了軍與民的界限。模糊了軍用設施與民用設施、軍用技術與民用技術的傳統分界線。信息技術在軍用和民用上的共享,為廣泛利用民間技術達成軍事目的創造了條件。例如,可以利用民間的電子信息設備進行情報截獲和傳輸可以利用民間的通信網絡進行戰爭動員;可以利用民間的計算機進行網絡進攻和防禦等。其次,軍事人員與非軍事人員的區別也在逐漸消失。隨著網絡技術的發展和應用領域的擴大,大批的網絡技術人才脫穎而出。這些具備特殊能力的網絡精英將成為未來網絡人民戰爭中的角斗士。與此同時,通信、交通、金融系統等信息網絡與國際聯網,為中國開展人民戰爭提供了必要條件。
如今,人民戰爭思想已經被確立為中國網絡信息戰的根本指導原則。一個中國軍方作者寫道:“靈活機動的戰略戰術原則,仍然是網絡信息戰的靈魂。廣大人民群眾積極參戰,特別是技術支援和網上參戰,則是奪取網絡信息戰勝利的群眾基礎和力量源泉。”
網絡人民戰爭的威力是如此可怕,或許,我們可以明白為何中國人願意削減其武裝部隊規模了——設想一旦戰爭爆發,中國可以發動大量民眾參戰,信息工程師和平民將被組織起來,通過家中的電腦攻擊美國的網絡信息系統,那又何必要維持規模龐大的作戰部隊呢?
信息戰演練
過去幾年裡,中國舉行過數次重大信息戰軍事演習對信息戰理論進行檢驗。首次“特種戰”(信息戰)演練於1997年10月進行。某軍區的一個集團軍遭到旨在癱瘓其係統的病毒攻擊,該集團軍用殺毒軟件進行了防衛。該演練被稱為“入侵與反入侵演練”。演習時還動用了地面後勤、醫療和空軍部隊。
1998年10月,中國舉行了一場由三大軍區聯合進行的高科技綜合演練。聯合防禦作戰演練中首次使用了“軍事信息高速公路”。指揮自動化系統中的信息網絡系統由數字、撥號、指揮網和保密信道組成。指揮自動化系統的其他部分是指揮作戰、音頻和圖形處理、控制和數據加密等子系統。
1999年10月,解放軍首次進行了兩個集團軍之間的戰役級計算機網上對抗演習。演練了偵察與反偵察、干擾與反干擾、封鎖與反封鎖、空襲與反空襲等科目。在軟件環境下進行了資源共享、作戰指揮、態勢顯示、輔助評估、信號傳輸和情報戰等6類作業。計算機評估系統對演習雙方的表現進行數據與質量分析。
2000年7月,某軍區也進行了網上對抗演練。與此次演練有關的3項訓練任務是:組織和計劃戰役、奪取制空權和製信息權、實施突破和反突破。有100多台終端聯網參與了演練。
民兵分隊
中國的人民戰爭有一套完備的體制,其總體發展方向是“精幹的常備軍與強大的後備力量相結合”,這種國防體制有利於發揮人民戰爭的整體效能和“網海戰術”優勢。
中國150萬預備役部隊十分熱衷於打網絡人民戰爭。在一些地區,解放軍已經把預備役部隊編成小型信息戰部隊。例如,在湖北省宜昌市,軍分區組織了20個市政部門(電力、財政、電視、醫療等)的技術人員成立了預備役信息戰團。該部擁有網絡戰營、電子戰營、情報心理戰營及35個技術分隊。該部還建立了中國第一個能容納500人的預備役信息戰訓練基地。
宜昌並不是組織預備役和民兵進行信息戰訓練的唯一地區。 1999年12月在福建廈門召開了預備役和民兵會議。在隨後進行的演習中,擁有高技術裝備的民兵分隊進行了電子對抗、網絡攻擊和防護、雷達偵察表演。山於假想攻擊的目標是一座被包圍的島嶼,因此很容易讓外人聯想到是針對台灣。廈門是經濟特區,匯集了大量高科技人才,因此有實施信息戰的優越條件。
在一次由濟南軍區舉行的演習中,西安人武部信息戰分隊扮演負責攻擊的藍方,他們制定了10種信息戰措施,其中有安放信息地雷、信息偵察、改動網絡資料、釋放信息炸彈、傾倒網絡垃圾、分發網絡傳單、信息欺騙、散佈虛假信息、組織信息防禦、建立網絡間諜站。從這些網絡信息戰法可以看出,他們對網絡信息戰的研究已相當具體、深入。
中國的軍事專家還建議,各級民兵組織都應成立網絡技術專業分隊,為便於指揮協調,民兵網絡技術專業分隊應以省或者地區為單位實行條條編組,垂直管理。後備力量參與未來戰爭中的“網絡攻防”和“網絡技術保障”,其行動要由軍隊組織實施和統一協調。
培養基地
中國人民解放軍發展出自己的一套信息戰教育方法,其步驟是:首先傳授網絡信息戰基礎知識;其次通過講述外軍的先進軍事思想提高信息戰知識水平;然後提高信息戰使用技能,特別是電子技術、心理戰技術和信息攻防技術;最後,通過演習把知識轉化為實際操作能力。在中國,主要由解放軍院校擔負培養信息戰高技術人才的責任:
解放軍通信指揮學院,位於武漢。 1998年,該院出版了兩部書籍,分別是《信息作戰指揮控制學》和《信息作戰技術學》,這兩部書籍是中國信息戰教育最重要的教材。該學院以其優良的信息戰教程設置而享有很高的聲譽,這些教程分析了戰略、戰役、戰術層次的信息作戰要求。
解放軍信息工程大學,位於鄭州,由原解放軍信息工程學院、電子技術學院和測繪學院合併而成。該校目前主要研究領域是信息安全,現代通信技術和空間技術,並且在一些尖端學科領域進行探索,如遙感信息技術、衛星導航與定位技術、地理信息數據庫技術。
解放軍理工大學,位於南京,由原解放軍通信工程學院、工程兵工程學院、空軍氣象學院和總參第63研究所合併而成。該校專門負責訓練信息戰、指揮自動化和其它新學科的軍事人才。有近400名專家教授在該大學從事信息戰理論與技術研究。
解放軍國防科技大學,位於長沙,該校直接隸屬於中央軍委。曾開發了著名的“銀河”系列超級計算機。 1999年4月到6月科索沃戰爭期間,近60名高級軍官匯集在此研究高科技戰爭。
解放軍海軍工程大學,位於武漢,是海軍唯一研究信息戰的院校。該校研究信息戰的目的是把信息技術應用到海軍裝備,使中國海軍能適應信息化戰爭。
結論
我們從中國的信息戰研究中能得到什麼結論呢?美國軍隊又能從中得到什麼啟示呢?
首先,中國的軍事理論家找到了一廉價而有效的信息戰方法,它使中國在戰略軍事和國際地位上取得與西方相等的位置,從而使中國在亞人地區發揮更重要的戰略角色。
其次,中國對新型信息戰部隊的重視非同尋常。因此可能會發展形式各樣的信息戰部隊,例如:網絡部隊(獨立兵種)、“網絡勇士”突襲分隊、信息保護部隊、信息兵團,電子警察和聯合網絡人民戰爭機構。有意思的是,就現階段的能力而言,西方國家,而不是中國,更具有把這些設想付諸實施的能力。
第三,中國的信息戰理論反映了西方和中國思想的結合,而且前者的影響力越來越弱。由於軍事指揮藝術的一些共同淵源(馬克思主義辯證思想),中國的信息戰思想更類似於俄國。但是,就其本質而言,中國的信息戰理論與俄國和西方都不同。中國的信息戰理論強調控制、電腦化戰爭、網絡戰、知識戰和製信息權。
第四,在信息戰領域,中國跨越了若干技術發展階段,利用四方的技術,不僅節省了時間而且還節省了金錢。不過,中國沒有完全仿效外國,而是採用創造性的信息戰策略。但不管怎麼樣,中國都是值得關注的一支不同於其他國家的信息戰力量。
對美軍而言,研究中國的信息戰理論絕非僅僅為了給軍方提供幾條意見。 《孫子兵法》稱“知彼知已,百戰百勝”。從外國信息戰理論的角度來分析美國的信息戰能力,才能發現美國信息戰系統的致命缺陷。
正如中國人所言,信息戰的失敗者不一定是技術落後方,那些缺乏指揮藝術和戰略能力的人才最可能是失敗者。美國到了該反省自己的信息戰思想,並研究信息戰戰略和戰術的時候了。 (範胜球編譯)(《國際展望》)
華夏經緯網 2004年02月11日

 

國外軍事家看中國特色的信息戰 // Chinese Characteristics of Information Warfare: Foreign Military Observations

國外軍事家看中國特色的信息戰 //

Chinese Characteristics of Information Warfare: Foreign Military Observations

In recent years, information warfare has become a hot spot all over the world.China’s military strategists have not neglected their importance as a tool of war, and are accelerating the development of information warfare theory. They are not only exploring theoretical issues, but also training troops.

Information warfare with Chinese characteristics

Chinese military theorists believe that information warfare can give Mao Zedong’s people’s war ideas into the omission. This view by the Chinese information warfare expert Wang Pufeng (transliteration) generals in 1995 for the first time. Some people think that electronics, computer and information engineering experts, like the past soldiers on the battlefield, can become the main force in the new people’s war. Obviously they want to use the people’s war ideas to fight the information war – a war with a home computer, when necessary to mobilize thousands of people, attack foreign computer systems. China has a number of outstanding software experts, in the field of information war has great potential. The question is how to seek greater information space and equipment for the huge population.

“The whole society will replace the traditional battlefield,” said Shen Weiguang, an information warfare expert. “Different classes and social groups will participate in political activities in their own country or other countries.” He advocates the establishment of a scientist, police, Other experts to form the information protection forces to defend the security of the national information field, to counter the invasion of information launched by other countries.

The idea of ​​combining the people’s war with the information war is being carried out in China’s 1.5 million strong reserve army. The People’s Liberation Army is turning the reserve forces of certain military sub-divisions into small-scale information warfare. In Hubei, a military division, the People’s Armed Forces Department has 20 towns of the armed forces to form a reserve / militia information warfare. The Department has a network of war camps, electronic war camps, intelligence and psychological camps, and 35 technical units (classes to camp). The department has also established the first training base for information services that can accommodate 500 people.

The above-mentioned military division is not the only military division of the organization’s reserve and militia for information warfare. “Liberation Army Daily” has reported that in December 1999 a city along the southeast coast held a meeting of the reserve and militia forces, during the electronic interference, network attack and defense and radar reconnaissance and other red. There are also reports of information warfare activities organized by the People’s Armed Forces and the Armed Forces in other regions.

In the information war era, China is also affected by another important tactics, that is, China’s “thirty-six dollars.” About 300 years ago, an unnamed scholar collected 36 Chinese tactics, and compiled a book, named “thirty-six dollars.” The book focuses on deception as a military art that achieves military goals. In the information age, due to the unknown uncertainty of the attacker’s origin (the program’s listening to the source of the virus and the presence of the back door increases the vulnerability of the system), some tactics may be reusable, thirty-six may find new Meaning and new use.

Some critics argue that in today’s high-tech era, these ancient strategies are hard to do. However, just look at a few of them, then it is another situation: the first plan “deceive”, meaning by resorting to deceit and camouflage means to hide their true intentions, in order to achieve the purpose of loosening the enemy vigilance. Applying to information wartime is the use of regular e-mail and commercial lines on the Internet to cover the purpose of sending dangerous code and viruses. The fourth meter “to wait and see”. Meaning that when fighting their own recharge your batteries, until the enemy fatigue chaos, take the opportunity to win. Application to the information wartime is the use of people’s war theory, extensive mobilization of the masses to attack, until all the Western computer to meet the difficulty of self-propelled when the implementation of large-scale attack.

At present, China is considering the establishment of future high-tech operations of the “network army.” It will protect the network sovereignty, network warfare and technology and knowledge-intensive operations. Network technology will include: can decipher the password, steal data and restore data browsing technology; can attack on the network and attack counterattack technology; can fake fake identity from the network to steal the license of camouflage technology; to avoid attacks, Prevent internal leaks, and defensive techniques that prevent random action like electronic police.

Definition of information warfare

China’s famous author of the issue of information warfare at home and abroad is Dr. Shen Weiguang, Major General Wang Pufeng, Wang Baoji University and Yuan Bangji General (both sound Ze). In 1996, Dr. Shen first proposed the definition of information warfare: information war is a two sides through the control of information and intelligence to try to master the battlefield initiative of the war. As the United States defined, Dr. Shen stressed that “save yourself, fight against the enemy” into “to protect themselves, control the enemy.” Wang generals also believe that the key to information warfare is to control the information.
In 1997, Wang Baoji University from the perspective of China’s military science and Marxism-Leninism to elaborate on the word information warfare. This article covers the form, nature, hierarchy, characteristics, characteristics and principles of information warfare. He believes that the form of information warfare is divided into normal, crisis and wartime three; nature is attack and defense of the contest; level is divided into national, strategic, theater and tactical four; features include command and control warfare, intelligence war Such as electronic warfare, psychological warfare, space control warfare, hacking warfare, virtual warfare, economic warfare, strategic and precise contest, etc .; features complex, transparent, limited target, short duration, small damage, large combat space, Comprehensive, strong command capability, etc .; in principle, to take cut, blinded, transparent, fast melon and improve the viability and other measures. His office and analysis of information warfare help people gain a deeper understanding of China’s information warfare.

Another author of China’s definition of information war is the General Staff of the PLA General Staff, he wrote in the 1999 book that: “Information war is a capture and maintain the control of information and struggle between the hostile parties Compete for access to control and use of information initiative, they use and protect their own information and resources and information systems at the same time, will use and destroy the enemy’s information resources, information systems and information-based weapons systems.

In 2000, General Wang Pufeng made a more thorough and thorough explanation of the “information warfare” than he used to be “information war”. Wang believes that the information war refers to a war and a war mode; information warfare refers to a kind of combat and a combat mode. The new mode of action refers to the action that is carried out in the computer network. Information warfare includes information detection systems, information transmission systems, information and weapons attack systems, and information processing and application systems. Information warfare contains information warfare, which combines information and ability to use information networks based on the battlefield as their place of activity.

Information warfare training

In February 1999, an interesting article on information warfare training defined information warfare as a knowledge war, a special contest for the power of high intelligence. The definition stems from the fact that high-tech warfare requires commanders and operators to have a high level of knowledge, strong mental, command and operational skills.
Chinese military leaders, after recognizing the gap between the above and the more developed countries, decided to carry out training activities at all levels. The staff will be divided into three categories by age:

The first category for the support of talent, the main goal is more than 40 years of age at all levels of leading cadres. The aim is to eliminate their blind spots by training (from mechanization concepts to simulated computer fights) to change their minds and apply them to future wars. Training content includes: information technology foundation, information warfare theory, information warfare weapons universal knowledge. Training methods of color training courses and other auxiliary methods.

The second category is a transitional talent, training goal is 30-40 year old cadres. As the future leaders of the Chinese army, they must focus on improving the commanding ability in the information warfare environment.

The third category for the regeneration of talent, training for the 30-year-old cadres. These people have long been adapted to the information society, with a good foundation of modern information technology theory, focusing on improving their commanding ability and skills.

The training of various age groups includes: basic theory (computer foundation and application, communication network technology, information highway, digital force); electronic warfare; radar technology; information war rules and rules; information strategy and tactics; theater and strategic information warfare Information systems (including the collection of letters, processing, information and use of information warfare); monitoring, decision-making and control systems; information weapons (soft and hard destruction of the concept and principles, how to use information weapons, analog information warfare); information system protection; Computer virus attack and defense, as well as communication network interference and anti-interference.

The article shows that China is preparing a first-class information warfare course. However, subsequent reports indicate that this is not the case. In July 1999, a “Liberation Army Daily” pointed out: “training content, system and structure of the rationality of the information warfare training can not really become the mainstream of our military training.Currently, information warfare training in a state of arbitrary. System, operation is not standardized, the lack of assessment standards and management regulations.

Information warfare

Over the past three years, China has held several major information warfare military exercises, every time it is important, because it is a test of information war theory. The first “special war” (information warfare) exercise was conducted in October 1997; a military army in a military area was subjected to a computer attack aimed at paralyzing its system, and the group’s military antivirus software was defended. The exercise is called “invasion and anti-intrusion exercise”. The exercise used ground logistics, medical and air forces.

In October 1998, China held a high-tech comprehensive exercise with several national military zones. The first use of the “military information superhighway” was used for joint defense operations. The information network subsystem in the command automation system is composed of digital, dialing, command network and secret channel. The other parts of the command automation system are subsystems such as command warfare, audio and graphics processing, control and data encryption. Military information highway in addition to the trend map, but also send graphics, characters and audio data.

In October 1999, the People’s Liberation Army for the first time between the two groups of war-level computer online confrontation exercise. Conducted reconnaissance and anti-reconnaissance, interference and anti-interference, blockade and anti-blockade, air strikes and anti-air raid and other subjects. In the software environment, resource sharing, combat command, situation display, auxiliary evaluation, signal transmission and intelligence warfare and other six types of operations. The computer evaluation system conducts mathematical and qualitative analysis of the performance of the participant.
In July 2000, a military area in southwest China also conducted an online confrontation exercise. The three training tasks related to the exercise are: organizing and planning the campaign, seizing air power and making information, implementing breakthroughs and breaking down. There are more than 100 terminal networking involved in the exercise. Three weeks later, another military area also opened a high-tech exercise curtain, and issued to the subordinate units began to control the communication line command.

China ‘s Information Warfare Ability

Chinese military theorists have found a voluntary, very economical and obedient partner in information warfare. This partner will enable China to catch up with the West in strategic, military and international status. Which will enable China to play an important strategic role in the future Asia-Pacific region. China may gradually pay close attention to economic competitors.

China attaches great importance to the role played by the new information warfare forces, including the network forces (independent arms), the network warriors commando, the information protection forces, the information corps, the electronic police and the joint people’s war network. The latter is particularly concerned by foreign analysts because of its unique nature and potential. Chinese military theorists believe that the victory of information warfare will belong to the one who can mobilize the most computer experts to participate in the “information family war”, they will use such as cyber war strategy, trying to cut off important information nodes and contacts.

At present, China’s information warfare combines Western, Russian and Chinese ideas. However, information wars with Chinese characteristics, which are different from Russia and the West, are gradually forming. China’s information warfare should look for answers to the questions from today’s military history, such as the nature and characteristics of information warfare.

However, there are still many shortcomings in China’s information warfare methods, not just quantitative aspects. The core of the information warfare theory also involves maintaining the integrity and stability of the infrastructure. In the information age, infrastructure stability is as important as troop survivability. China’s biggest weakness is just in terms of infrastructure. At present, China is accelerating the development of electronic information industry, its purpose is nothing more than for the military and civilian information base for the use of infrastructure.

China is good at drawing lessons from others, may soon be able to set up a compelling information warfare force. Information war has forced China to cross a number of technological development stages, the use of Western technology, not only save time but also save money. However, China may not fully follow the example of others, but will take a creative or indirect information war strategy. But no matter what, China is worthy of attention is different from other countries, the power of information.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

近些年來,信息戰已經成為全世界的熱點。中國的軍事家們也沒有忽視其作為戰爭工具的重要意義,正在加速發展信息戰理論。他們不僅正在探索理論方面的課題,而且也在據此訓練部隊。

中國特色的信息戰

中國軍事理論家認為,信息戰可以給毛澤東的人民戰爭思想注入省略。此觀點由中國信息戰專家王普峰(音譯)將軍於1995年首次提出。有人認為,電子、計算機和信息工程專家如同過去戰場上的將士一樣,可以成為新人民戰爭中的主力軍。顯然他們是希望用人民戰爭思想打信息戰--一種用家用微機即可進行的戰爭,需要時動員成千上萬人,攻擊外國計算機系統。中國擁有一批傑出的軟件專家,在信息戰領域有巨大潛力。問題是如何為龐大的人口尋求更大的信息空間和設備。

信息戰專家沈偉光在文章中寫道:“整個社會將取代傳統戰場。不同階層和社會團體將參與本國或其他國家的政治活動。”他主張建立一支由精通信息戰的科學家、警察、士兵和其他專家組成的信息保護部隊,以捍衛國家信息領域的安全,反擊其他國家發動的信息入侵。

將人民戰爭和信息戰相結合的思想正在貫徹到中國150萬強大後備軍中。人民解放軍正將某些軍分區的後備役部隊變成小型信息戰團。在湖北某軍分區,人民武裝部已將20個城鎮的武裝部組成一個後備役/民兵信息戰團。該部擁有網絡戰營、電子戰營、情報和心理戰營,以及35支技術分隊(班到營)。該部還建立了第一個可容納500人的後備役信息戰訓練基地。

上述軍分區並非是組織後備役和民兵進行信息戰訓練的唯一軍分區。 《解放軍報》曾報導說,1999年12月東南沿海某城市舉行了一次運用後備役和民兵部隊的會議,期間進行了電子乾擾,網絡攻防和雷達偵察等演紅。同樣還有其他地區人武部和軍分區組織信息戰活動的報導。

在信息戰時代,中國還受到另一個重要戰法的影響,即中國的“三十六計”。大約300年前,一位無名學者蒐集到中國的36個計謀,並彙編成書,取名為《三十六計》。該書著重將欺騙作為達成軍事目標的軍事藝術。在信息時代,因攻擊者來歷不明的情況不確定性(程序聽病毒源和存在的後門增大了系統的易損性),有些計謀可能會重新有用武之地,三十六計可能會找到新含義和新用途。

一些評論家認為,在當今的高技術時代,這些古代計策難有作為。然而,只需看看其中的幾計,則又是另一番情況:第一計“瞞天過海”,意思是通過採取欺騙和偽裝的手段隱藏自己的真實意圖,以達到鬆懈敵人警惕性的目的。應用到信息戰時就是使用互聯網上的正規電子郵件和商業線路來掩蓋發送危險代碼和病毒的目的。第四計“以逸待勞”。意思是作戰時自己養精蓄銳,待敵疲勞混亂時,乘機出擊取勝。應用到信息戰時就是利用人民戰爭理論,廣泛發動群眾進行攻擊,待所有西方計算機應爭反應小級難以自拔時再實施大規模進攻。

目前中國正考慮建立未來高科技作戰的“網絡軍”。它將保護網絡主權,進行網絡戰以及技術和知識密集型作戰。網絡技術將包括:能破譯密碼、偷取數據和恢復數據的瀏覽技術;能在網絡上發起攻擊和乾擾的反擊技術;能通過偽造假身份從網絡竊取許可權的偽裝技術;能避開攻擊、防止內部洩密以及像電子警察那樣阻止隨意行動的防禦技術。

信息戰的定義

中國探討國內外信息戰問題的著名作者是沈偉光博士、王普鋒少將、王保存大校和袁邦概將軍(均為音澤)。 1996年,沈博士首次提出信息戰定義:信息戰是一場雙方通過控制信息和情報輿來設法掌握戰場主動權的戰爭。正如美國界定的那樣,沈博士強調把“保存自己,打擊敵人”變為“保護自己,控制敵人”。王將軍也認為信息戰取勝的關鍵是控制信息。
1997年,王保存大校從中國軍事科學和馬列主義的角度精闢地闡述字信息戰問題。該文涵蓋信息戰的形式、性質、層次、特徵、特點和原則。他認為:形式上信息戰分為平時、危機時和戰時三種;性質上是攻與防的較量;層次分為國家、戰略、戰區和戰術四級;特徵包括指揮與控制戰、情報戰、電子戰、心理戰、空間控制戰、黑客戰、虛擬戰、經濟戰、戰略和精確的較量等;特點有復雜、透明、目標有限、持續時間短、毀傷小、戰鬥空間大、部隊疏散、綜合性強、指揮能力要求強等;原則上採取切斷、蒙蔽、透明、快速瓜和提高生存力等措施。他對信息戰的辦公室和分析有助於人們更深入了解中國的信息戰。

中國另一位界定信息戰的作者是解放軍總參謀部的袁將軍,他在1999年撰寫的書中認為:“信息戰是一場奪取和保持信息控制權而進行的鬥爭,是敵對雙方之間爭奪獲取控制和使用信息主動權的鬥爭,他們在使用和保護己方各種信息戰資源和信息系統的同時,會利用和破壞敵方的信息資源、信息系統和基於信息的武器系統。

2000年,王普鋒將軍對“信息戰爭”作了比以往更深入透徹的解釋,以別於“信息戰”。王將軍認為,信息戰爭指的是一種戰爭和一種戰爭模式;信息戰指的是一種作戰和一種作戰模式。之種新作戰模式指的是在計算機網絡窨進行的行動。信息戰包括信息探測系統、信息傳輸系統、信息和武器攻擊系統以及信息處理和應用系統。信息戰爭包含信息戰,兩者將信息和能力融為一體,使用以信息網絡為基礎的戰場作為他們的活動場所。

信息戰訓練

1999年2月,一篇關於信息戰訓練的有趣文章將信息戰界定為知識型戰爭,是高智能人才之間力量的特殊較量。該定義源於這樣一個事實:高技術戰爭需要指揮員和操作員有很高的知識、很強的心理素質、指揮能力和作戰技術。
中國軍方領導人在認識到上述幾方面與較發達國家存在的差距後,決定在各級開展訓練活動。將人員按年齡分為3類:

第一類為支撐型人才,主要目標是40多歲以上的各級領導幹部。目的是通過訓練(從機械化概念到模擬計算機戰鬥)消除他們的信息盲區,轉變他們的觀念,使其將新思維應用到未來戰爭中去。訓練內容包括:信息技術基礎、信息戰理論、信息戰武器普及知識。訓練方法彩短訓班和其他輔助方法。

第二類為過渡型人才,培養目標是30-40歲的干部。作為中國軍隊的未來領導者,他們必須著重提高信息戰環境下的指揮能力。

第三類為再生型人才,培養對象為30歲以下的干部。這些人早已適應信息社會,擁有現代信息技術理論的良好根基,重點是提高他們的指揮能力和技藝。

各個年齡組的訓練包括:基礎理論(計算機基礎和應用、通信網絡技術、信息高速公路、數字化部隊);電子對抗;雷達技術;信息戰規律與規則;信息戰略與戰術;戰區與戰略信息戰的信息系統(包括收信紙、處理、輿和使用信息戰指令);監測、決策和控制系統;信息武器(軟、硬破壞的概念和原則、如何應用信息武器、模擬信息戰);信息系統保護;計算機病毒攻與防,以及通信網絡的干擾與反干擾。

該文章表明中國正在編制第一流的信息戰課程。然而,後來的報導表明情況並非如此。 1999年7月的一份《解放軍報》指出:“訓練內容、體制和結構的無理性使信息戰訓練不能真正成為我軍訓練的主流。目前,信息戰訓練處於一種隨心所欲的狀態。內容不系統,運作不規範,缺乏評估標準和管理規章”。

信息戰演練

過去3年,中國舉行過數次重大信息戰軍事演習,每次都很重要,因為那是對信息戰理論的一次檢驗。首次“特種戰”(信息戰)演練於1997年10月進行;某軍區的一個集團軍遭到旨在癱瘓其係統的計算機攻擊,該集團軍用殺毒軟件進行了防衛。該演練被稱為“入侵與反入侵演練”。演習時運用了地面後勤、醫療和空軍部隊。

1998年10月,中國舉行了一場有全國數個軍區聯合進行的高科技綜合演練。聯合防禦作戰演練時首次使用了“軍事信息高速公路”。指揮自動化系統中的信息網絡子系統由數字、撥號、指揮網和保密信道組成。指揮自動化系統的其他部分是指揮作戰、音頻和圖形處理、控制和數據加密等子系統。軍事信息高速公路除傳勢圖外,還發發送圖形、字符和音頻數據。

1999年10月,解放軍首次進行了兩個集團軍之間的戰役級計算機網上對抗演練。演練了偵察與反偵察、干擾與反干擾、封鎖與反封鎖、空襲與反空襲等科目。在軟件環境下進行了資源共享、作戰指揮、態勢顯示、輔助評估、信號傳輸和情報戰等6類作業。計算機評估系統對參演者的表現進行數理與質量分析。
2000年7月,西南某軍區也進行了網上對抗演練。與此次演練有關的3項訓練任務是:組織和計劃戰役、奪取制空權和製信息權、實施突破和反突破。有100多台終端聯網參與了演練。三週後,另一個軍區也拉開了高技術演練的帷幕,並向下屬部隊下達開始控制通信線路的命令。

中國的信息戰能力

中國軍事理論家已在信息戰方面找到一個自願、非常經濟和順從的伙伴。這個夥伴將使中國在戰略、軍事和國際地位上趕上西方。這將使中國在未來亞太地區發揮重要的戰略作用。中國可能會逐步引起經濟競爭者的密切關注。

中國異常重視新信息戰部隊所表現出的作用,這方面的各種組織包括:網絡部隊(獨立兵種)、網絡勇士突擊隊、信息保護部隊、信息兵團、電子警察和聯合的人民戰爭網絡機構。後者因其獨特的性質和潛力引起外國分析家格外關注。中國軍事理論家認為,信息戰的勝利將屬於能夠動員最多的計算機專家參加“信息家庭戰”的那一方,他們將採用諸如網點戰那樣的戰略,設法切斷重要的信息節點和接點。

目前,中國的信息戰融合了西方、俄羅斯和中國的思想,然而,有別於俄羅斯和西方的具有中國特色的信息戰詞彙正在逐步形成。中國信息戰應從中國軍事歷史中尋找解決當今問題的答案,如36計、信息戰的性質和特點看來非常適合這些計策。

但是,中國的信息戰方法還存在許多不足,還不僅僅是數量方面的問題。信息戰作戰理論的核心還涉及到保持基礎設施的完整性和穩定性。在信息時代,基礎設施穩定性與部隊生存能力同等重要。中國的最大弱點恰恰就在基礎設施方面。目前中國正在加速發展電子信息產業,其目的不外乎是為軍民聯用的信息基礎設施打基礎。

中國善於吸取別人的前車之鑑,可能很快就可以組建一支令人刮目相看的信息戰力量。信息戰已迫使中國跨越了若干技術發展階段,利用西方的技術,不僅節省了時間而且還節省了金錢。然而,中國可能不會完全仿效別人,而將採取創造性的或間接的信息戰策略。但不管怎麼樣,中國都是值得關注的一支不同於其他國家的信息戰力量.

Original Date: 新華網 ( 2003-06-12 16:0x:xx )

Original Source:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2003-06/12/content_916888.htm

China’s Blurred War: Trends of Future Battlefields // 中國模糊戰爭:未來戰場的發展趨勢

China’s Blurred War: Trends of Future Battlefields //

中國模糊戰爭:未來戰場的發展趨勢

With the continuous development of information technology, changing the form, nature and scale of war, so that the combat style, combat methods, combat environment, combat conditions and other elements have been a lot of changes in the past, the future battlefield becomes more blurred, Can be summarized as the following:

War scale and level ambiguity

War in size and level, can be divided into strategies, campaigns and tactics, in the past, the difference between the three very obvious. From the three interrelationships, the strategy decides the battle, the battle determines the tactics, and the tactics reacts to the battle, the battle reacts to the strategy, which is the inherent law of the existence of the war itself. With the development of information technology, the development of high-tech war as information war, although not fundamentally change the strategic, campaign, tactical and counter-role of this dialectical relationship, but it makes the strategy, battle, tactical action scale increasingly blurred. This is because, under the conditions of information under the conditions of local war, the size and use of troops, weapons, limited duration of war, political prominence, war and strategy, battle, tactics combined very closely, tend to one. Information weapons and weapons to combat high precision, powerful, long range, with all-weather, all-weather combination of peaceful reconnaissance and combat integration capabilities for the rapid realization of the purpose of war to provide an effective means, sometimes do not use large forces can Reach the strategy, the battle target. Any combat unit, and even the individual combat operations, can get a strong information and fire support. Under their influence, tactical combat can directly achieve strategic objectives, strategic command can be involved in the tactical level is no longer a dream at any time. Thus, in the past through the local small victory gradually integrated into a strategic victory of the operational theory of the impact of the strategy, campaign, tactical three combat levels between the increasingly blurred.

With the extensive use of precision strike weapons, stealth weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles, and thus through the first and second fire assault can be reached a battle or strategic objectives. In the Gulf War, the multinational force first through a large-scale strategic air raids, and then through the ground operations of the various forces reached a war purpose; US invasion of Panama, through the use of the Army to implement the five-way center of the campaign to achieve the desired purpose; In the war in Afghanistan, the US military, through the air strike and the special forces to achieve the purpose of the war; the Iraq war, the US military in the air against the cover, the US Army division through tactical action reached a war purpose. The scale of operation and the ambiguity of the level are the reflection of the essential characteristics of information warfare. In the information war, the hostile parties for the rapid completion of the established strategic objectives, will be extraordinary use of combat power, to maximize the advanced technical weapons and elite troops, and strive to destroy each other in a short time the command and control system to win the battlefield The advantage of making information right. This feature of the information warfare, so that the battle of combat and strategic purposes there is no obvious distinction between the scale of operations there is no clear battle battle difference. A battle may determine the outcome of the war, a battle may also achieve the purpose of war, thus greatly improving the strategic role of the battle battle. Especially the various precision guidance weapons, ballistic missile defense system, reconnaissance surveillance system, stealth weapon, C4ISR system and other information weapons and the extensive use of rapid reaction forces, special forces, strategic reserve and other frequently into the battlefield, making the definition of combat scale fuzzy More prominent.

Therefore, in the future information operations, the two sides will fight with the uncertainty of the scale of operations, to take over-the-line precision strike, non-programmatic “acupuncture” and structural damage and other tactics, against each other’s battlefield awareness system and information systems Quickly achieve the purpose of fighting. In this way, the special operations forces on the battlefield may be able to show their talents, that is, before the war secretly penetrate the enemy, direct attack and paralyze the enemy command and control system, so that the enemy lost control of its combat forces, and thus into the chaos of command, The Although the scale of the operation of the smaller, but for the outcome of the war can play a very important role.

Weapon equipment and functional blur

Technical decision tactics, also determines the army’s system and the composition of military and arms. For example, the emergence of weapons and equipment such as artillery, chemical weapons and radio telegraphy, laid the material foundation for the emergence of new arms such as artillery, chemical warfare, and communications. In terms of military services, due to the emergence of the aircraft, and then produced the Air Force; ship advent, gave birth to the Navy. Industrial era, the requirements of the division of labor, so refined and produced more and more professional, reflected in the composition of the army, is the division of arms and branches more and more fine; information age, requires the overall combat, the professional Close cooperation, and take the road of integrated and integrated operations. Reflected in the composition of the military trend, is the integration of combat systems. For example, many of the future weapons and equipment system will form an independent combat unit, both to complete the army requirements of the combat mission, but also to achieve the Air Force’s operational requirements, but also to achieve the purpose of naval combat. In other words, when the future combat aircraft’s infinite capacity to extend, and beyond the atmosphere combat; Army bid farewell to the “ground crawling” to achieve global arrival, global operations; the Navy to the sea to land, to the air combat capability transformation, Battle will inevitably lead to integrated forces. Integrated combat troops, generally composed of armored forces, artillery, mechanized infantry, missiles, attack and transport helicopters, naval vessels and other components, can independently combat, will realize the professional army to the professional army transition.

Future integration forces will be the main performance, will break the traditional land, sea, air, days and other military system, in accordance with the requirements of system integration, the establishment of “super-integrated” integrated combat forces. The future of information warfare is a highly integrated joint operations, the use of traditional forces of the implementation of joint operations, it is difficult to adapt to this highly integrated joint operations needs. To this end, the future composition of the military organization, will break the traditional land, sea, air, days and other military system, in accordance with the reconnaissance surveillance, command and control, precision strike and support to protect the four operational functions, built four subsystems, namely: Subsystems, command and control subsystems, precision strike and combat subsystems, and support assurance subsystems. The functions of these four subsystems are closely linked and organically linked to form an interdependent large integrated joint combat system. The army constructed in accordance with this idea will fundamentally abandon the pattern of military construction in the industrial age, eliminate the disadvantages of playing the military expertise and pursuing the interests of a single service, so that the combat forces form a “systematic system” or “system integration” Give full play to the overall power, the implementation of the true sense of “super-joint” integrated joint operations.

 

Military combat operations and the preparation of fuzzy war

Military combat forces have different targets and perform different combat missions. World War II, combat forces mainly infantry-based, basically infantry and infantry confrontation; the Second World War, due to the development of weapons and equipment, aircraft, tanks, cannons for war, arms and arms between the combat The task has a distinct distinction, usually performing a different combat mission. However, under the conditions of information in the local war, due to the development of weapons and equipment to the direction of multi-functional integration, the establishment of the army, not only the arms, as well as various services. Combat forces can perform both ground combat missions, but also the implementation of the fight against air and sea objectives and tasks, so that the boundaries between the military operations will be difficult to distinguish. For example: destroy the enemy tank weapons, may have been the Army’s tanks or anti-tank weapons, it may be the Air Force aircraft or naval submarines launched “smart” missiles. The US military plans to form four integrated forces: an integrated ground force composed of armored forces, artillery, flying warriors, attack and transport helicopters: air-to-air mechanized units with “flying tanks”; air force mixed knits composed of multiple models and A “joint task force” consisting of various military units. The Russian army intends to form a “multi-purpose mobile force”, an “aerospace force” composed of ground, air and space forces, and a “non-nuclear strategic deterrent force” composed of non-strategic nuclear forces.

In the future of localized information warfare, weapons and equipment to the multi-functional, integrated direction, the development of the trend of the trend of mixing, miniaturization. Combat, the arms and arms around the established operational objectives, each other, integrated into the organic whole. On the battlefield, the arms and services will be in the land, sea, air, days, electricity and other multi-dimensional areas, around the purpose of a unified combat, both in the activities of space is relatively independent, but also in the combat operations on a high degree of integration, making different arms and arms The task line becomes more vague.

War motives and ambiguity

The motive of the traditional war is generally the political struggle to cover up the economic interests of the dispute. In the information age, the economic interests of the dispute will continue to lead to the root causes of the war, but in addition, due to the international and domestic political forces between the various contacts increased, closely linked, which will inevitably lead to various countries, And the conflicts between the societies caused by political, diplomatic and spiritual factors have increased, so that the contradictions between religions and nationalities have increased, so that violence can be smuggled and drug trafficking and terrorist activities are internationalized. These contradictions and conflicts are not only the direct cause of the “sub-war operations”, but also one of the causes of the war. The direct cause of the Gulf War in 1991 was the convening of the United Nations Security Council immediately after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the adoption of resolution 660, condemning Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and demanding that Iraq be unconditionally withdrawn from its forces. The United States for the protection of Western oil sources and in order to establish a new order in line with the interests of the world’s new order, take the lead in the implementation of economic sanctions against Iraq, followed by the United States led the multinational force to implement the UN Security Council resolution in the name of the troops to the Gulf. Through 42 days of war, the US military reached the purpose of the war. The war in Iraq, the United States to Iraq has a weapons of mass destruction on the grounds, without the authorization of the United Nations launched an injustice war. Throughout the war, the focus of US military operations against Saddam Hussein and a handful of Iraqi high-level leaders, and to find weapons of mass destruction and launched the attack. Although the war has overthrew the Saddam regime, the United States still has not found strong evidence that Iraq has such banned weapons. In this war military purpose, the United States is also to test the new operational theory.

In recent years, the US military vigorously advocated military reform. The theory of the war in Iraq is the theory of “cyber-centric warfare” and uses the new theory of “shock and deterrence” put forward in 1996: emphasizing the use of violent firepower, shocking against opponents, regardless of frontier and depth, The enemy to combat, the use of advanced precision guidance technology, against each other’s goals when one side of the pursuit of both sides less casualties; air and ground operations at the same time, the purpose is to destroy each other’s will, so that its regime collapse, so as to achieve war and subdue The purpose of the soldiers. In the Iraq war, the US military did not carry out large-scale strategic bombing, but the use of high-tech and special forces tactics to combat, which is one of the main achievements of US military reform.

War attack and defense blur

The process of attack and defense in the past is very clear, the attacking party usually in accordance with the offensive preparation, breakthrough, shock, deep combat and other step by step attack procedures, defense side in accordance with the defense preparation, fire against the preparation, anti-impact, deep combat and other sub-combat operations Attack and defense both sides of the various stages of combat orderly. The development of high-tech weapons and equipment and information technology, the new military revolution will change the future combat procedures, combat operations will break through the fixed battlefield and position constraints in the entire operational space at all levels, all directions, all aspects of the same time. In this way, the front and rear lines in the past are blurred, the relatively stable front and fixed battlefields no longer exist, the line of offensive action and defensive action because the battlefield’s high mobility and uncertainty also become blurred and influence World military force balance. Offensive and defensive both offensive and defensive combat, especially offensive and defensive information war will become the focus of future combat art, so that every war has attack in the defense, anti-attack.

Attack and defense operations will be in the land, sea, air, days, electricity and outer space and front and depth, front and wing side, front and rear at the same time, the battlefield frequent mobility, line combat style has not adapted to the conditions of local war development Need to, instead of non-line operations, the formation of a “island-based combat base”, front and rear of the line, the enemy and the two sides of the front becomes blurred, the battlefield of the flow of non-linear or non-state state of the multi-dimensional battlefield.

Measure the outcome of the war with the standard fuzzy

In the past, the criteria for measuring the outcome of a war usually refer to how many troops are wiped out, how many weapons are seized, how many cities and territories are occupied, but in the case of local warfare, the criteria for measuring the outcome of a war are not just that. Under the conditions of information, local warfare, political purpose and war are closely integrated, war attempts often not through the invasion of each other’s territory, wiped out the enemy or the enemy completely surrendered, so as not to lead the world public opinion and the people’s strong opposition, resulting in political Passive.

One of the hallmarks of information warfare is that it minimizes casualties, in particular, collateral damage, and often uses precision-guided weapons to strike precisely, to avoid heavy assault, face-to-face fights, and fight against Libya “Surgical” operations, the implementation of air long-range maneuvers, to achieve the purpose of war; also the implementation of missiles, thousands of miles away siege warfare, but also to achieve the purpose of local war; also like the Gulf War, do not occupy its territory, Do not kill their soldiers a soldier, not seized its weapons, ammunition, the implementation of large-scale air strikes, weakened its military facilities, destroyed its regime.

The war army is blurred with the people

In previous wars, the links between the army and the society were relatively “loose” due to restrictions on information infrastructure and technology; pure war weapons and equipment also led to military organizations that were completely independent of the people. Information age, information has become a link between the military and the people, this combination, with the social and military information degree of development, integration will also continue to improve. This makes society and ordinary people no longer a spectator of war, and even not only in support and subordinate status, but with the army, from the back of the war to the front desk.

As people see, on the one hand, the purpose of modern warfare is no longer simply pursuing siege and the greatest annihilation of enemy forces, the target is no longer confined to the enemy’s heavy military and military facilities, but includes Corresponding to the survival and operation of the infrastructure, such as: financial networks, power grids, transport networks, administrative networks, communications networks. On the other hand, the war has a tendency to “civilians”. For example, information makes the “non-state” has the ability to confront national power. Any “non-state subject”, as long as there is a certain technical and information equipment, you can attack the vital goal of a country, its harm is sometimes no less than a traditional sense of the war. Such as Al Qaeda attacks on the United States launched the 9.11 attack, that is the case. Although the composition of the information warfare forces, although still have traces of the war in the past war, but in the form of form and combat quality, due to more information to join the content, in particular, more to join the information of the whole society Warfare ability, so no doubt to determine the specific role of information warfare when the thinking tends to blur, but for combat decision-making and command to bring greater difficulties. With the in-depth development of information technology, the degree of social information will be greatly improved. In this case the information war, it is more prominent military and civilian compatibility characteristics. Especially in the information warfare, many high-tech work, alone, the strength of the army is difficult to complete independently, but also the need for the whole social forces of collaboration, which makes the information warfare combat power, more into the national factors.

Combat both forces with contrast and blur

In the past, the strength of the war between the two sides, usually the number of military personnel, the number of weapons to measure the number of weapons to determine the strength of the advantages of planning and combat operations. But in the information under the conditions of local war, concentrated forces of content and methods have changed. The strength of the comparison is not only the number of considerations, but also mainly consider the quality, in particular, to consider the concentration of firepower and information, a variety of long-range strike weapons do not need to focus on deployment, you can focus on the implementation of the target surprise. To make the concentration of fire after the effective role, but also must focus on a lot of information, otherwise they can not capture, track and destroy the target. The most important weapon in military forces will no longer be a high-performance fighter, bomber, tank, warships, but a huge flood of data from the information system. Invisible information and knowledge, like armored masters, play a huge role in combat and are increasingly becoming the most important combat and power multiplier. Computing power, communication ability, reconnaissance ability, processing ability, decision-making ability, computer simulation ability, network warfare and other information and knowledge factors will become a key factor in measuring military power.

The contrast of military forces is increasingly dependent on the invisible and difficult potential of the intelligence and structural forces of the information weapons system. Therefore, in the past according to the number of combatants and tanks, aircraft, artillery, warships and other weapons and equipment performance, quantity and other static indicators to assess the strength of military strength is clearly challenged. Because of the intelligence of the information weapon system, the structural force has great potential for dynamic. The strength of the Gulf War contrast and the outcome of the war can explain this problem. Before the war, Iraq and the multinational force compared to 1.6: 1, but the result of the war is the Iraqi army casualties for the multinational force 100 times. Obviously, if not a large number of multinational force weapons system to play a multiplier combat potential, there will be no such a war situation. It can be seen that the principle of force assessment of the number of static quantities will be replaced by a new force theory.

Battlefield information is true and false

Because of the development of information technology, and widely used in future war, so that a large amount of modern war information, processing information has been very difficult. Such as: the US Strategic Air Force Command, an average of more than 815,000 per month to deal with military information, almost 26,500 copies per day. In the Gulf War, the multinational force in the 42 days of combat, dealing with up to millions of military information. Only the US Army logistics will handle 10,700 copies of military information every day. After the military, weapons and equipment and the battlefield are digitized, the military information highway will cover the entire combat space, the information is true and false, there are new and old, heavy and light, there is real, there are thick and so on, information Like the tide to the red and blue both sides of the command came. In such a fast-paced, fighter fleeting, information massive battlefield environment, to the red and blue commander of a brief decision-making time, forcing both commanders in the complex battlefield information forging discrimination, analysis and judgment, quick decision-making , Through the phenomenon to seize the essence, improve the command ability.

Battlefield space and scope is blurred

Battlefield is the enemy of the two sides of the interaction between combat forces and combat forces and firepower to kill the maximum distance. In the past war, due to the level of weapons and equipment constraints, cold weapons era battlefield space, basically confined to the war between the two sides of the visual distance; hot weapons and mechanized war era, battlefield space by the firearms and the two sides of the maneuverability And the battlefield space is expanding, and from a single land battlefield, to the development of the marine battlefield and air battlefield; combat distance from the visual distance to the development of remote and ultra-long-range , The depth and dimension of the battlefield continue to expand. After entering the information warfare, with the development of military weapons and equipment and structure changes, modern warfare space from the traditional land, sea and air to space, computer space, especially information, psychology, electromagnetic, cognitive and other virtual space expansion , In addition to the range of modern weapons and equipment and a substantial increase in mobility, the future battlefield in front and rear become increasingly blurred, in addition to the solid space in the solid before and after the exception, in the dynamic action space has no difference. Fighting may start from the front, it may start from the depth. Especially the establishment of digital forces, so that the army choose the way of combat operations, with greater freedom and flexibility. At the same time, but also to accurately determine the other side of the operational space and the exact location of the space, increasing the complexity. First, information weapons greatly improve the military’s ability to war, so that the military battlefield combat more flexible way. Second, information weapons greatly enhance the military’s full-time, all-round rapid mobility, so that information warfare warfare areas to expand.

Military aerospace capacity and long-range air transport capacity, the extensive use of armed helicopters, to achieve long-range rapid maneuver provides a good material basis. Future information warfare, or in three-dimensional space or in four-dimensional space, generally difficult to accurately grasp. And only when the other side of the combat operations to a certain size, it is possible to make a relatively accurate judgments, which to some extent increased the difficulty of command and control. The ambiguity of combat space is also manifested in the fuzzy scope of combat operations. As the future of information operations will break through the frontier to the depth of the gradual advance of the pattern, in a multi-dimensional space within the full range, full depth of the war, so that the scope of combat operations increased, combat space has become elusive. The uncertainty of the scale of combat operations in the information warfare determines the diversity of combat space. This also makes it possible to judge the space of the other combat operations, become blurred, and show the characteristics of difficult to predict and control.

Combat methods and methods are blurred

Advanced information technology, not only to achieve the real-time reconnaissance intelligence and digital battlefield, greatly improving the combat effectiveness of the army, more importantly, there have been many new means of warfare: such as information warfare momentum and power to make enemies Information deterrence; to disperse, conceal and open the information channel of the information shielding; on the enemy battlefield awareness system and information system implementation of information attacks; through the information system hidden false information fraud and information cut, computer virus attacks , Special operations, psychological warfare, non-contact operations, non-fatal attacks, structural damage warfare, these combat methods used in information warfare, completely changed the past offensive and defensive procedures clear and coherent characteristics, so that the use of combat means Order, combat form of non-model and other characteristics of more and more prominent, and then led to the information warfare, the use of the enemy means of warfare, timing and methods, become more difficult to guess. In the process of the combination of fuzzy, that is, in the course of the war, due to the enemy due to the appropriate choice of means of attack, and flexible combination, so that the enemy can not determine what the other side will take the means of combat, can not effectively take the appropriate protective measures. In the use of the timing of the fuzzy, that is, according to the intention of war and combat purposes, for different stages of combat and different areas of combat, to take different means of attack, reduce the enemy resistance will make it in trouble. In the fight against the ambiguity of the target, that is, the use of information warfare means of diversification, for the needs of information operations, both sound East West, but also the East and East, the flexibility to combat the enemy command center, communication center or radar station, air defense system , Logistical support systems and other key nodes, so that the enemy is difficult to use the means of my war to make accurate predictions.
原文網址:https://read01.com/j7m0M8.html

Original Mandarin Chinese:

隨著信息技術的不斷發展,改變了戰爭的形態、性質和規模,使作戰樣式、作戰方法、作戰環境、作戰條件等諸要素已較以往發生了諸多變化,未來戰場變得更加模糊不清,可歸納為以下幾種:

戰爭規模與層次模糊

戰爭在規模和層次上,可劃分為戰略、戰役和戰術,在以往戰爭中三者之間的區別十分明顯。從三者相互關係上,戰略決定戰役,戰役決定戰術,而且戰術反作用於戰役,戰役又反作用於戰略,這是戰爭本身存在的內在規律。隨著信息技術的發展,高技術戰爭發展為信息化戰爭,雖然未從根本上改變戰略、戰役、戰術這種作用與反作用的辯證關係,但是卻使戰略、戰役、戰術行動規模的日益模糊。這是因為,信息化條件下局部戰爭目的、規模和使用兵力、兵器有限,戰爭持續時間短,政治性突出,戰爭與戰略、戰役、戰術結合得十分緊密,趨於一體。信息化武器和兵器打擊精度高、威力大、射程遠,具有全天候、全時空的平戰結合的偵察與打擊一體化能力,為迅速達成戰爭目的提供了有效手段,有時不動用大部隊也能達成戰略、戰役目標。任何一個作戰單元,甚至是單兵的戰鬥行動,都能得到強大的信息和火力支援。在它們的作用下,戰術打擊可以直接達成戰略目的,戰略指揮可以隨時介入戰術層次已不再是夢想。由此可見,以往通過局部小勝逐步匯集成戰略性勝利的作戰理論受到衝擊,戰略、戰役、戰術三個作戰層次間的界線日益模糊。

隨著大量使用精確打擊兵器、隱形兵器、無人機,因而通過一、二次火力突擊就可達成戰役或戰略目標。海灣戰爭中,多國部隊首先是通過大規模的戰略空襲行動,爾後通過地面諸軍種聯合作戰達成了戰爭目的;美軍入侵巴拿馬,是通過動用陸軍實施五路重心攻擊的戰役行動達成了預期目的;阿富汗戰爭中,美軍主要通過空中精確打擊和特種部隊搜剿達成了戰爭目的;伊拉克戰爭中,美軍在空中打擊掩護下,美國陸軍師通過戰術行動達成了戰爭目的。作戰規模、層次的模糊性,是信息戰本質特徵的反映。在信息戰中,敵對雙方為迅速達成既定的戰略目的,將會超常使用作戰力量,最大限度地投入先進的技術兵器和精銳部隊,力求在短時間內摧毀對方的指揮控制系統,以奪取戰場上制信息權的優勢。信息戰的這一特點,使戰役戰鬥與戰略目的沒有明顯的區分,作戰規模也沒有明確的戰役戰鬥的區別。一次戰役既可能決定戰爭的勝負,一次戰鬥也可能實現戰爭的目的,從而大幅度地提高了戰役戰鬥的戰略作用。特別是各種精確制導武器、彈道飛彈防禦系統、偵察監視系統、隱形武器、C4ISR系統等信息化兵器的廣泛運用和快速反應部隊、特種部隊、戰略預備隊等頻繁投入戰場,使得作戰規模的界定模糊性更加突出。

因此,在未來信息作戰中,作戰雙方都將以不確定的作戰規模,採取超視距精確打擊、非程式化「點穴」和結構破壞等戰法,打擊對方的戰場感知系統與信息系統,以便迅速地達成作戰目的。這樣,戰場上的特種作戰部隊就可能大顯身手,即在戰前秘密地深入敵後,直接攻擊和癱瘓敵指揮控制系統,使敵失去對其作戰力量的控制,從而陷入指揮混亂、協調無序的困境。這種規模的作戰雖然較小,但對於作戰的勝負卻能起到極其重要的作用。

武器裝備與功能模糊

技術決定戰術,同樣也決定著軍隊的編制體制和軍兵種構成。例如,火炮、化學武器、無線電報機等武器裝備的出現,為炮兵、防化兵、通信兵等新兵種的出現奠定了物質基礎。就軍種而言,由於飛機的出現,進而產生了空軍;船舶的問世,催生出了海軍。工業時代,要求的是分工合作,所以細化和產生的專業越來越多,體現在軍隊的構成上,就是軍兵種劃分得越來越細;資訊時代,要求的是整體作戰,各專業之間密切協同,走集成一體化聯合作戰之路。反映在軍隊的構成趨勢上,就是作戰系統的一體化。比如,未來許多武器裝備系統將形成一個獨立的作戰單元,既可完成陸軍要求的作戰任務,也可實現空軍的作戰要求,還可達到海軍的作戰目的。換句話說,當未來作戰飛機的續航能力無限延長,並超越大氣層作戰;陸軍告別「地面爬行」,實現全球抵達、全球作戰;海軍實現由海到陸、到空的作戰能力轉化之時,一體化作戰必然催生一體化部隊。一體化作戰部隊,一般由裝甲兵、炮兵、機械化步兵、飛彈、攻擊和運輸直升機、海軍艦艇等組成,能獨立作戰,將實現專業軍隊向職業化軍隊過渡。

未來一體化部隊將主要表現為,將打破傳統的陸、海、空、天等軍種體制,按照系統集成的要求,建立「超聯合」的一體化作戰部隊。未來信息化戰爭是高度一體化聯合作戰,使用傳統的諸軍種力量實施聯合作戰,已難以適應這種高度一體化聯合作戰的需要。為此,未來軍隊組織的編成,將打破傳統的陸、海、空、天等軍種體制,按照偵察監視、指揮控制、精確打擊和支援保障四大作戰職能,建成四個子系統,即:探測預警子系統、指揮控制子系統、精確打擊與作戰子系統和支援保障子系統。這四個子系統的功能緊密銜接,有機聯繫,構成一個相互依存龐大的一體化聯合作戰系統。按照這個思路構建的軍隊,將從根本上拋棄工業化時代軍隊建設的模式,革除偏重發揮軍種專長和追求單一軍種利益的弊端,使作戰力量形成「系統的系統」或「系統的集成」,從而能夠充分發揮整體威力,實施真正意義上「超聯合」的一體化聯合作戰。

軍兵種作戰任務與編制模糊

軍兵種作戰力量具有不同的打擊目標和執行不同作戰任務。第一次世界大戰,作戰力量主要以步兵為主,基本上是步兵與步兵的對抗;第二次世界大戰,由於武器裝備的發展,飛機、坦克、大炮用於戰爭,軍兵種之間的作戰任務有了明顯區分,通常執行不同的作戰任務。但是在信息化條件下局部戰爭中,由於武器裝備向多功能一體化方向上發展,部隊的編制內,不僅有各兵種,還有各軍種。作戰部隊既能執行地面作戰任務,又能執行打擊空中和海上目標任務,使軍種間作戰的界線將不易區分。例如:摧毀敵方坦克的兵器,可能是已方陸軍的坦克或反坦克兵器,也可能是空軍的飛機或海軍潛艇發射的「智能」型飛彈。美軍計劃組建四種一體化部隊:由裝甲兵、炮兵、飛彈兵、攻擊與運輸直升機組成的一體化地面部隊:編有「飛行坦克」的陸空機械化部隊;由多機種組成的空軍混編聯隊和中隊;由各軍種部隊組成的「聯合特遣部隊」。俄軍擬組建集各軍兵種於一體的「多用途機動部隊」,由地面、空中和太空兵力組成的「航空航天部隊」,以及由各軍種非戰略核力量組成的「非核戰略威懾部隊」。

在未來信息化局部戰爭中,武器裝備向多功能、一體化方向發展,部隊的編制趨向混合化、小型化。作戰中,各軍兵種圍繞既定的作戰目標,彼此依存,融為有機的整體。在戰場上,各軍兵種將在陸、海、空、天、電等多維領域,圍繞統一的作戰目的,既在活動空間上相對獨立,又在作戰行動上高度融合,使得不同軍兵種所執行的任務界線變得更加模糊。

戰爭動因與目的模糊

傳統戰爭的動因一般是政治鬥爭掩蓋下的經濟利益之爭。在資訊時代,經濟利益之爭仍將是導致戰爭的根本原因,但除此之外,由於各國之間、國際國內各派政治力量之間交往增多,聯繫密切,這就必然導致各個國家、民族、社團之間由政治、外交、精神等因素引發的衝突增多,使宗教、民族矛盾上升,使暴力活動、走私販毒、恐怖活動國際化。這些矛盾與衝突不僅是「亞戰爭行動」的直接根源,也是導致戰爭的動因之一。1991年海灣戰爭直接動因,是1990年8月2日伊拉克入侵科威特之後,聯合國安理會立即召開會議,通過了660號決議,譴責伊拉克入侵科威特,要求伊拉克無條件從科撤軍。美國出於保護西方石油來源和為建立符合其利益的世界新秩序的目的,乘虛而入帶頭對伊拉克實施經濟制裁,隨後以美國為首的多國部隊以執行聯合國安理會決議為名,出兵海灣。通過42天的交戰,美軍達到了戰爭目的。伊拉克戰爭,美國以伊拉克擁有大規模殺傷性武器為由,沒有經過聯合國授權而發動的一場非正義戰爭。整個戰爭中,美軍作戰的重心是針對薩達姆等少數伊拉克高層領導人,並以尋找大規模殺傷性武器而展開的攻擊行動。雖然戰爭已經推翻了薩達姆政權,但是美國至今仍然沒有找到伊拉克擁有這種違禁武器的有力證據。在這場戰爭軍事目的上,美國也是為了試驗新的作戰理論。

近幾年,美軍大力倡導軍事變革。指導伊拉克戰爭的理論是「網絡中心戰」理論,並運用1996年提出的「震撼與威懾」的新理論:強調運用猛烈的火力,震撼性打擊對手,不分前沿和縱深,全方位迅速地對敵人進行打擊,運用先進的精確制導技術,打擊對方目標時片面追求雙方較少的傷亡;空中與地面行動同時展開,目的是摧毀對方的意志,使其政權崩潰,從而達到不戰而屈人之兵的目的。伊拉克戰爭中,美軍沒有進行大規模的戰略轟炸,而是利用高技術加特種兵的戰術進行作戰,這是美軍軍事變革的主要成果之一。

戰爭進攻與防禦模糊

以往攻防作戰的程序十分明,進攻一方通常按照進攻準備、突破、衝擊、縱深作戰等步步進攻程序進行,防禦一方按照防禦準備、火力反準備、反衝擊、縱深抗擊等分段抗擊作戰程序進行,攻防雙方各個作戰階段展開有序。而高技術武器裝備和信息技術的發展,新軍事革命將改變未來作戰程序,作戰行動將突破固定的戰場和陣地的限制,在整個作戰空間的各個層次、各個方向、各個方面同時進行。這樣一來,以往戰爭中的前後方界線模糊,相對穩定的正面和固定的戰場不復存在,進攻行動和防禦行動的界線因為戰場的高度流動性和不確定性也變得模糊不清並影響世界軍事力量平衡。攻防兼備、攻防一體作戰尤其是攻防一體的信息戰將成為今後作戰藝術的焦點,使每一次戰爭都有攻中有防、防中有攻。

攻防作戰將在陸、海、空、天、電以及外層空間和前沿與縱深、正面與翼側、前方與後方同時展開,戰場機動頻繁,線式作戰樣式已不適應信息化條件下局部戰爭發展的需要,取而代之的是非線式作戰,形成一種「島嶼式作戰基點」,前方與後方的界線、敵我雙方的戰線變得模糊,戰場呈現流動的非線性或無戰線狀態的多維立體戰場。

衡量戰爭勝負與標準模糊

以往衡量一場戰爭勝負的標準通常指的是殲滅對方多少兵力,繳獲多少武器,占領多少城鎮和領土,然而在未來信息化條件下局部戰爭中,衡量一場戰爭勝負的標準已不只是這些。信息化條件下的局部戰爭,政治目的與戰爭結合得緊密,戰爭企圖往往不通過侵入對方領土,全殲敵軍或使敵方徹底投降,以免引發世界輿論的和民眾的強烈反對,造成政治上的被動。

信息化戰爭的一大特點是,將使傷亡、破壞,特別是附帶性破壞減少到最低限度,通常使用精確制導武器精確打擊,避免重兵集結進行面對面的拼殺,打一場像美軍懲罰利比亞發動的「外科手術式」作戰,實施空中遠程機動空襲,達成戰爭目的;也可實施飛彈,進行遠隔千里的攻城戰,也能達成局部戰爭的目的;也可像海灣戰爭那樣,不占領其國土,不殺傷其一兵一卒,不繳獲其武器、彈藥,實施的大規模的空襲戰,削弱其軍事設施,搗毀其國政權。

戰爭軍隊與民眾模糊

以往的戰爭,由於受信息基礎設施和技術的限制,軍隊與社會的聯繫相對「鬆散」;純戰爭的武器裝備亦導致完全獨立於民間之外的軍事組織。資訊時代,信息成為軍民結合的紐帶,這種結合,隨著社會和軍隊的信息化程度的發展,融合程度也將不斷提高。這就使得社會和普通民眾不再是戰爭的旁觀者,甚至也不僅處於支援和從屬地位,而是與軍隊一樣,從戰爭的幕後走向了前台。

正如人們看到的,一方面,現代戰爭的目的已不再單純地追求攻城掠地和最大限度地殲滅敵有生力量,打擊目標亦不再局限於敵方的重兵集團和軍事設施,而是包括對應賴以生存和運轉的基礎設施,如:金融網、電力網、交通網、行政網、通信網等。另一方面,戰爭有向「平民化」發展的趨勢。比如,信息化使得「非國家主體」具備了與國家力量進行對抗的能力。任何一個「非國家主體」,只要具備一定的技術和信息設備,就可以對一個國家的要害目標進行攻擊,其危害有時並不亞於一場傳統意義上的戰爭。比如基地組織對美發動的9·11襲擊,就是如此。信息戰力量的構成,雖然仍具有以往戰爭全民參戰的痕跡,但是在構成的形式和作戰的質量上,由於較多地加入了信息化的含量,特別是較多地加入了全社會民眾的信息戰能力,所以無疑使判斷信息戰具體參與力量時的思維趨於模糊,而為作戰決策與指揮帶來較大的困難。隨著信息技術深入發展,社會民眾的信息化程度也將極大地提高。在這種情況下的信息戰,就更加突出軍民兼容的特徵。特別在信息戰中,許多高技術工作,僅靠軍隊的力量難以獨立完成,還需要全社會力量的協作,這就使信息戰的作戰力量,較多地融入了全民皆兵的因素。

作戰雙方力量對比與能力模糊

以往交戰雙方力量對比,通常以軍隊人員數量多少、各種武器多少的比數來衡量力量優勢,進行籌劃攻防作戰。但在信息化條件下局部戰爭中,集中兵力的內容和方式有所改變。力量的對比不只是考慮數量多少,更主要是考慮質量,尤其是要考慮集中火力和信息,各種遠程打擊兵器不需要集中部署,就可對目標實施集中突擊。要使集中後的火力有效地發揮作用,還必須集中大量信息,否則就無法捕捉、跟蹤和摧毀目標。軍事力量中最重要的武器將不再是高性能的戰鬥機、轟炸機、坦克、戰艦,而是由信息系統湧現的巨大數據洪流。無形的信息和知識像裝甲雄師一般,在作戰中發揮巨大的作用,並日益成為最重要的戰鬥力和力量倍增器。計算能力、通信能力、偵察能力、處理能力、決策能力、計算機模擬能力、網絡戰等信息和知識因素都將成為衡量軍事力量的關鍵因素。

軍事力量的對比,越來越多地取決於信息武器系統的智力和結構力所帶來的無形的、難以量化的巨大潛力。因此,以往根據作戰人數和坦克、飛機、大炮、軍艦等武器裝備的性能、數量等靜態指標評定軍事力量強弱的方法顯然受到了挑戰。因為信息武器系統的智力、結構力具有巨大的動態潛力。海灣戰爭的兵力對比和戰爭結局就可說明這個問題。戰前,伊拉克與多國部隊的兵力對比是1.6:1,但戰爭結果是伊軍的傷亡為多國部隊的100倍。顯然,如果不是多國部隊的大量信息武器系統發揮出成倍的作戰潛力,是不會有如此戰局。可見,靜態數質量指標的力量評估原則將會被一種全新的力量理論所取代。

戰場信息真與假模糊

由於信息技術的發展,並廣泛運用於未來戰爭,使現代戰爭信息量很大,處理信息已經十分困難。如:美國戰略空軍司令部,平均每月要處理軍事信息815000多份,差不多每天處理26500份。在海灣戰爭中,多國部隊在42 天作戰中,處理軍事信息多達數百萬份。僅美國陸軍後勤每天就要處理軍事信息10700份。在軍隊、武器裝備和戰場都實現數字化以後,軍事信息高速公路將覆蓋整個作戰空間,這些信息有真有假、有新有舊、有重有輕、有虛有實、有粗有細等,信息像潮水般地向紅藍雙方指揮所湧來。在這樣快節奏、戰機稍縱即逝、信息海量戰場環境中,給紅藍雙方指揮員短暫決策處理時間,逼著雙方指揮員在錯綜複雜的戰場信息中鍛鍊辨別力、分析判斷力、快速決策力,透過現象抓住本質,提高指揮能力。

戰場空間與範圍模糊

戰場是指敵對雙方作戰力量相互作用並加上作戰力量機動和火力殺傷的最大距離。以往戰爭中,由於受武器裝備水平的限制,冷兵器時代的戰場空間,基本局限在交戰雙方的目視距離之內;熱兵器和機械化戰爭時代,戰場空間由火器的射程和雙方兵力的機動能力所決定,並隨著火器(炮)射程和兵力機動能力的不斷提高,戰場空間日漸擴大,並由單一的陸地戰場,發展到海洋戰場和空中戰場;作戰距離則由目視距離發展到遠程和超遠程,戰場的縱深和維度不斷拓展。進入信息化作戰後,隨著軍隊武器裝備和結構的發展變化,現代戰爭的作戰空間又從傳統的陸、海、空向太空、計算機空間,特別是信息、心理、電磁、認知等虛擬空間拓展,加之現代武器裝備的射程及機動能力大幅提高,未來戰場的前方和後方變得日漸模糊,除了在固態的地理空間上有前後之分外,在動態的行動空間上已無先後之別。戰鬥既可能從前方打響,也可能從縱深開始。特別是數字化部隊的建立,使軍隊選擇作戰行動的方式,具備了更大的自由度和靈活性。同時,也為準確地判斷對方作戰行動空間的具體範圍和準確位置,增加了複雜度。一是信息化武器大大提高了軍隊的遠戰能力,使軍隊的戰場打擊方式更加靈活。二是信息化武器大大增強了軍隊的全時空、全方位快速機動能力,使信息戰的交戰區域更加擴大。

軍事航天能力和遠程空運能力的提高,武裝直升機的廣泛運用,為實現遠距離快速機動提供了良好的物質基礎。未來信息戰,或在三維空間或在四維空間進行,一般不易準確把握。而只有當對方的作戰行動達到一定規模時,才有可能作出相對準確的判斷,這在一定程度上增加了指揮和控制的難度。作戰空間的模糊性,還表現在作戰行動範圍的模糊。由於未來信息作戰將打破由前沿向縱深逐次推進的格局,在多維的空間內進行全方位、全縱深的交戰,就使作戰行動的範圍增大,作戰空間變得難以捉摸。信息戰所具有的作戰行動規模的不確定性,決定了作戰空間的多樣性。這也使判斷對方作戰行動的空間,變得模糊起來,而呈現出不易預測和控制的特點。

作戰手段與方法模糊

先進的信息技術,不僅實現了偵察情報的實時化和戰場數字化,極大地提高了軍隊的戰鬥效能,更重要的是出現了許多嶄新的作戰手段:如以信息戰的聲勢和威力使敵懾服的信息威懾;以分散、隱蔽和廣開信息通道的方法進行的信息屏蔽;對敵戰場認識系統和信息系統實施的信息攻擊;通過信息系統隱真示假行動的信息欺騙以及信息割斷、計算機病毒襲擊、特種作戰、心理戰、非接觸作戰、非致命攻擊、結構破壞戰等,這些作戰手段運用於信息戰,完全改變了以往攻防作戰程序清晰、連貫性強的特點,使作戰手段運用的非有序性、作戰形式的非模式化等特點越來越突出,進而導致了在信息戰中,對敵方作戰手段運用的規律、時機和方法,變得更加難以揣度。在手段組合上的模糊,即在作戰過程中,因勢因敵恰當地選擇打擊手段,並靈活地進行組合,使敵無法判斷對方將要採取何種作戰手段,無法有效地採取相應的防護措施。在運用時機上的模糊,即根據作戰的意圖和作戰目的,針對不同的作戰階段和不同的作戰領域,採取不同的打擊手段,降低敵抵抗意志,使之陷入困境。在打擊目標上的模糊,即利用信息戰作戰手段多樣化的特點,針對信息作戰的需要,既可聲東擊西,亦可聲東擊東,靈活地打擊敵指揮中心、通信中心或雷達站、防空系統、後勤保障系統等關鍵節點,使敵難以對我作戰手段的運用作出準確的預測。
原文網址:https://read01.com/j7m0M8.html

Original Source: https://read01.com/j7m0M8.html

 

中國優先發展網絡戰略信息化戰 // China to give priority to the development of network strategy & information warfare

中國優先發展網絡戰略信息化戰 //

China to give priority to the development of network strategy & information warfare

Cyberspace has become the national comprehensive security of the door. Network warfare reality, the network battlefield globalization, network confrontation normalization, the network attack heart white hot, the network to build the army of the general trend, no one can block. Give priority to the development of network strategy, and actively seize the commanding heights of network strategy, for my army building is of great significance.

  The main features of network strategy

Network strategic strength refers to the ability to achieve the desired results through cyberspace. From the current development and possible future trends, mainly with the following characteristics.

Composed of multiple. In recent years, the major network events in the world have shown that the strategic power of the military network is the main force of cyberspace competition. The strategic power of the government departments and the private sector is an important part of the cyberspace competition. The “cyber warrior” An important addition.

Strong professionalism. Network strategy strength has a strong latent and difficult to predict, and the speed of light, instantaneous effect, monitoring and early warning is difficult; once the action is effective, damage effect superimposed magnification or non-linear step, with a typical “butterfly effect.” In 2010, the “shock net” virus attacked the centrifuges of the Iranian Bushehr nuclear power plant and the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, resulting in nearly a thousand centrifuge scrapped, forcing Iran’s nuclear capacity building to delay 2 to 3 years, opened the network attack soft means Destroy the national hard facilities.

Destructive. The strategic power of the network is no less than the weapons of mass destruction. Russia and Georgia in 2008, “the five-day war”, the Russian military to Georgia’s television media, government websites and transportation systems as the goal, to carry out a comprehensive “bee group” type of network paralysis attacks, leading to grid government agencies operating chaos, Logistics and communication system collapse, much-needed war materials can not be delivered in a timely manner, the potential of the war has been seriously weakened, a direct impact on the grid of social order, operational command and troop scheduling. The Russian military doctrine has identified cybercrime as a weapon of mass destruction and has retained the right to use weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons to counterattack.

Advanced technology and phase. Network strategy strength development speed, replacement fast, technical materialization for the equipment cycle is short. At present, the speed of the microprocessor doubles every 18 months, the backbone bandwidth doubled every six months, a variety of new electronic information equipment after another, all kinds of application software dizzying. Cyber ​​space confrontation is the field of information in the field of offensive and defensive struggle, the use of network strategy forces in the confrontation of the phase with grams, constantly renovated. The development of the firewall and the information monitoring technology makes the software of the anti-wall software upgrade continuously. The development of the firewall and the information monitoring technology has led to the development of the firewall. , Can be described as “a foot high, magic high ten feet.”

  The Developing Trend of Network Strategic

From the subordinate force to the development of key forces. In the past, the network strategic power is mainly for other forces to provide information security, in a subordinate position; with the development of network information technology, network system control of other rights, network strategic forces from subordinate status to the dominant position to accelerate into, to maintain the country The key to safety. There is no network security there is no sovereign security, “no net” to become a new law of war, the world’s major countries around the network space development rights, dominance and control of a new round of competition, especially the United States and Russia adhere to the practice In the use and continue to develop.

From the maintenance of force to the development of specialized forces. In the past, the network strategy is mainly to maintain the network information system and all kinds of network transmission system, network attack and defense attributes are not clear. At present, all areas of the network space in depth, the world’s major countries are hard to build cyberspace offensive and defensive capabilities, the main military power of the network strategy has become a network of reconnaissance, network attacks, network defense and other clear division of labor, professional regular military forces. The United States has so far built the world’s most complete and powerful network of the army, and held a series of “network storm” series of exercises. The new “cyberspace strategy” in the United States, the first public to cyberspace combat as one of the tactical options for future military conflict, clearly proposed to improve the US military in the cyberspace of deterrence and offensive capability. In order to adapt to the new strategy, the US Department of Defense proposed 2018 to build a offensive and defensive, flexible form, with full combat capability of the network forces construction goals.

From the military to the integration of military and civilian development. The development of the strategic power of the military network started relatively late compared with the civil field, and because of the confidentiality of military confrontation and the specificity of the operational objectives, it is often developed independently. With the development of network technology, the military’s own network strategic strength is difficult to meet the needs of diversified tasks, we must learn from local folk technical means, integrate local network resources, realize the integration of military and civilian development. Network space capacity building on the talent, intelligence, experience and other software environment is extremely high, coupled with the local convergence of a wealth of network resources, military and civilian forces to promote the development of cyberspace capabilities become the strong tone of the times.

From a single model to the “network integration” development. At present, the network includes both the computer IP system network and the non-computer IP system network including a large number of complex early warning detection network, satellite communication network and tactical data link. The traditional single network confrontation model is difficult to meet the challenge of cyberspace. With the development of information technology, especially the Internet of Things technology, the relationship between the network and the power of the battlefield network more and more closely, which for the “network integration” in the technical means to provide the possibility. The use of electronic warfare and network warfare means, for different systems around the open bow, broken chain broken network, to achieve complementary advantages, system damage, as the latest guidance on the construction of network space. Data show that the US military typical network of integrated attack equipment “Shu special” system has been from the “Shu-1” to the current development of “Shu-5”. According to reports, “Shute” system through the enemy radar antenna, microwave relay station, network processing nodes to invade the enemy air defense network system, real-time monitoring of enemy radar detection results, even as a system administrator to take over the enemy network, Control of the sensor.

From non-state actors to state actors. At present, the network attack has developed from a single hacker behavior for the national, political, military confrontation, the attack object has been developed from the personal website to the country, the army’s important information system, attack “unit” has grown from stand-alone to tens of thousands Hundreds of thousands of terminals, and can instantly release the amazing attack energy. Although many of the intentions of malicious acts of non-State actors are non-state, the consequences are national, whether they are espionage, political opinions, or personal discontent, or terrorist activities , Have a direct impact on social stability, disrupt the economic order, endanger the stability of state power. Once the relevant reaction is made, the subject of the act must be the state and the army, and not the non-state actors themselves.

  The Construction of Network Strategic Strength

Strengthen strategic planning. Cyberspace competition is the first strategic battle of the contest. From the national level, the network strategy of the power of the main function is to reduce the risk of cyberspace, maintaining the normal operation of the country. We must understand the extreme importance and realistic urgency of cyberspace security from the perspective of national security, raise the focus of cyberspace capacity building to the strategic level, and try to reduce the national cyberspace security while trying to solve the problem of how to make good use of cyberspace Risk, so that cyberspace security has become an important support for national prosperity and security. From the military level, the network strategy is mainly to seize the system of network power. We must expand the military vision, the cyberspace as an important area of ​​action, to seize the system as the core, change the military ideas and ideas, adjust the structure and composition of armed forces, the development of weapons and equipment and take a new tactics.

Speed ​​up the construction of the power system. Maintain cyberspace security in the final analysis depends on the strength. We must base ourselves on the characteristics and laws of cyberspace capacity building, focus on the core elements of network capability system and the overall layout of network strategy, and systematically design the system structure which conforms to the law and characteristics of cyberspace confrontation in our country, and perfect the system of leadership and command Functional tasks, straighten out the relationship between command and management. We should take the network strategic power as an important new combat force, from the organization construction, personnel training, equipment development, elements of training and other aspects, to take extraordinary measures to give priority construction, focus on protection. To normalize the national network of offensive and defensive exercises, test theory, tactics, equipment and technology effectiveness, and comprehensively enhance the comprehensive prevention of cyberspace capabilities.

Promote technological innovation. The essence of cyberspace confrontation is the competition of core technology, and it is necessary to accelerate the independent innovation of network information technology. To improve the ability of independent innovation as a strategic basis to the national innovation system as the basic support, focus on breaking the forefront of network development technology and international competitiveness of the key core technology, advanced deployment and focus on the development of information technology and information industry. To speed up the process of localization of key core technologies, strengthen the construction of safety testing and active early warning means, and gradually improve the equipment system of cyberspace in China, and comprehensively improve our network space capability. To follow the basic laws of cyberspace confrontation, in accordance with the “asymmetric checks and balances” strategy, increase the quantum technology, Internet of things and cloud computing and other new technology research and development efforts to create unique combat capability, master the initiative of cyberspace security development The

Promote the integration of military and civilian development. The integration of the military space ability of military and civilian development is not only the overall situation of national security and development strategy, the overall planning of national defense and economic and social development, but also the objective fact that cyberspace security can not be avoided. We must actively promote the deep integration of military and civilian development, to promote China’s network space capacity supporting the construction. It is necessary to formulate top-level planning in the form of policies and regulations, clarify the objectives, methods, organizational division and basic requirements of the deepening development of cyberspace in the form of policies and regulations, and make the integration of military and civilian development into law enforcement and organizational behavior; To establish a sound military coordination, demand docking, resource sharing mechanism, through a unified leadership management organization and coordination of military needs and major work, to achieve risk sharing, sharing of resources and common development of the new situation. We should pay attention to the distinction between the boundaries of military and civilian integration, clear the concept of development-oriented people and the main battle concept of the army, and actively explore the military and the people, the advantages of complementary channels.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

网络空间成为国家综合安全的命门。网络战争现实化、网络战场全球化、网络对抗常态化、网络攻心白热化、网络建军正规化的大势,无人可挡。优先发展网络战略力量,积极抢占网络战略制高点,对于我军队建设具有重要意义。

  网络战略力量的主要特点

网络战略力量,是指通过网络空间来实现预期结果的能力。从当前发展及未来可能的走势看,主要有以下特点。

组成多元。近年来发生在全球范围内的重大网络事件表明,军队网络战略力量是网络空间竞争的主力军,政府部门、私营机构网络战略力量是网络空间竞争的重要部分,民间“网络战士”是网络空间竞争的重要补充。

专业性强。网络战略力量具有极强的潜伏性和难预测性,且以光速进行、瞬时产生效果,监测预警难度大;一旦行动奏效,损害效果叠加放大或非线性阶跃,具有典型的“蝴蝶效应”。2010年,“震网”病毒攻击了伊朗布什尔核电站和纳坦兹铀浓缩厂的离心机,造成近千台离心机报废,迫使伊朗核能力建设延迟2至3年,开启了网络攻击软手段摧毁国家硬设施的先河。

破坏性大。网络战略力量破坏力不亚于大规模杀伤性武器。2008年俄国与格鲁吉亚“五日战争”中,俄军以格方的电视媒体、政府网站和交通系统等为目标,开展全面的“蜂群”式网络阻瘫攻击,导致格政府机构运作混乱,物流和通信系统崩溃,急需的战争物资无法及时投送,战争潜力受到严重削弱,直接影响了格的社会秩序、作战指挥和部队调度。俄罗斯军事学说已将网络攻击手段定性为大规模毁灭性武器,并保留了运用大规模毁灭性武器或核武器反击的权利。

技术先进且相生相克。网络战略力量发展速度快、更新换代快,技术物化为装备的周期短。当前,微处理器的速度每18个月翻一番,主干网带宽每6个月增加一倍,各种新型电子信息设备层出不穷,各种应用软件目不暇接。网络空间对抗是信息领域的攻防斗争,网络战略力量使用的手段在对抗中相生相克、不断翻新。常规通信受干扰催生了跳、扩频通信体制,跳、扩频通信的出现又催生了频率跟踪干扰、相关信号干扰等新型电子干扰手段;防火墙、信息监控技术的发展,使翻墙软件不断升级,可谓“道高一尺,魔高一丈”。

  网络战略力量的发展趋势

由从属性力量向关键性力量发展。以往网络战略力量主要是为其他力量提供信息保障,处于从属地位;随着网络信息技术的发展,制网权统揽其他制权,网络战略力量由从属地位向主导地位加速转进,成为维护国家安全的关键。没有网络安全就没有主权安全,“无网不胜”成为战争的新定律,世界各主要国家围绕网络空间的发展权、主导权和控制权展开了新一轮的角逐,特别是美俄坚持在实践中运用并不断发展。

由维护型力量向专业化力量发展。以往网络战略力量主要是维护网络化信息系统和各类网络传输系统,网络攻击和防御属性均不鲜明。当下各领域对网络空间深度依赖,世界主要国家无不竭力打造网络空间攻防能力,主要军事强国的网络战略力量业已成为集网络侦察、网络攻击、网络防御等分工明确、专业化的正规军事力量。美国迄今已建成全球编制最齐全、力量最庞大的网军,并多次举行“网络风暴”系列演习。美国新版《网络空间战略》,首次公开把网络空间作战作为今后军事冲突的战术选项之一,明确提出要提高美军在网络空间的威慑和进攻能力。为适应新战略,美国防部提出2018年建成一支攻防兼备、形式灵活,具备全面作战能力的网络部队的建设目标。

由军地自主向军民融合发展。军队网络战略力量的发展相对于民用领域起步较晚,且由于军事对抗的保密性和作战目标的特定性,往往自主发展。随着网络技术的发展,军队自身的网络战略力量难满足多样化任务的需要,必须学习借鉴地方民间技术手段,整合地方网络资源,实现军民融合发展。网络空间能力建设对人才、智力、经验等软件环境要求极高,加上地方汇聚了丰富的网络资源,军民联手推进网络空间能力发展成为时代的强音。

由单一模式向“网电一体”发展。现阶段,网络既包括计算机IP体制网络,更包含大量复杂的预警探测网、卫星通信网、战术数据链等非计算机IP体制网络,传统的单一网络对抗模式难以应对网络空间的挑战。随着信息技术特别是物联网技术的发展,战场网中网与电的关系越来越紧密,这为“网电一体”在技术手段上提供了可能。综合运用电子战与网络战手段,针对不同体制的网络左右开弓、断链破网,实现优势互补、体系破击,成为网络空间能力建设的最新指导。有资料显示,美军典型网电一体攻击装备“舒特”系统已从“舒特-1”发展到目前的“舒特-5”。据报道,“舒特”系统可通过敌方雷达天线、微波中继站、网络处理节点入侵敌方防空网络系统,能够实时监视敌方雷达的探测结果,甚至以系统管理员身份接管敌方网络,实现对传感器的控制。

由非国家行为体向国家行为体发展。目前,网络攻击已从单个的黑客行为发展为国家、政治、军事上的对抗行为,攻击对象已从个人网站发展到国家、军队的重要信息系统,攻击“单元”已从单机发展到数万乃至数十万台终端,且能在瞬时释放惊人的攻击能量。尽管非国家行为体的恶意网络行为目的许多是非国家的,但由此所造成的后果却是国家的,无论是进行间谍活动,还是发表政治主张,或是发泄个人不满情绪,或是进行恐怖活动,都直接影响社会稳定、扰乱经济秩序、危及国家政权稳固。一旦因之作出相关反应,其行为主体一定是国家和军队,而不再是非国家行为体本身。

  网络战略力量的建设指向

加强战略统筹谋划。网络空间竞争首先是战略运筹的较量。从国家层面看,网络战略力量的职能主要是降低网络空间的风险,维护国家正常运转。必须从国家安全的视角认清网络空间安全的极端重要性和现实紧迫性,将网络空间能力建设的着眼点上升到战略层面,在着力解决如何利用好网络空间的同时,努力降低国家网络空间安全风险,使网络空间安全成为国家繁荣与安全的重要支撑。从军队层面看,网络战略力量主要是夺取制网权。必须拓展军事视野,把网络空间作为制权行动的一个重要领域,以夺取制网权为核心,变革军事思想和观念,调整武装力量结构与构成,发展武器装备并采取新的战法。

加快力量体系构建。维护网络空间安全说到底要靠实力。必须立足于网络空间能力建设的特点、规律,围绕我国网络能力体系核心要素和网络战略力量建设总体布局,以系统思维设计符合我国网络空间对抗规律和特点的体系架构,健全领导指挥体制机制,明确职能任务,理顺指挥管理关系。要把网络战略力量作为重要的新型作战力量突出出来,从组织建设、人才培养、装备发展、要素演训等各方面,采取超常举措,给予重点建设、重点保障。要常态化开展国家级网络攻防演练,检验理论、战法、装备及技术的有效性,全面提升网络空间综合防范能力。

推进技术自主创新。网络空间对抗的实质是核心技术的比拼,必须加快推进网络信息技术自主创新。要把提高自主创新能力作为战略基点,以国家创新体系为基本依托,集中力量突破网络发展的前沿技术和具有国际竞争力的关键核心技术,超前部署和重点发展信息技术和信息产业。要加速关键核心技术的国产化进程,加强安全测试和主动预警手段的建设,逐步完善我国网络空间的装备体系,全面提高我国网络空间能力。要遵循网络空间对抗的基本规律,按照“非对称制衡”方略,加大对量子科技、物联网和云计算等新技术的研发力度,以独创技术塑造实战能力,掌握网络空间安全发展的主动权。

推动军民融合发展。网络空间能力的军民融合式发展,既是站在国家安全与发展的战略全局,对国防和经济社会发展统筹谋划,也是网络空间安全不能回避的客观事实。必须积极推动军民深度融合发展,全力推进我国网络空间能力配套建设。要综合军民需求制定顶层规划,以政策法规的形式明确网络空间军民融合深度发展的目标任务、方法路径、组织分工和基本要求等关系全局的重大问题,变军民融合发展为执法行为、组织行为;要建立健全军地协调、需求对接、资源共享机制,通过统一的领导管理机构组织协调军地的各类需求和重大工作,达成风险共担、资源共享、共同发展的新局面。要注重军民融合的界限区分,明确以民为主的发展理念和以军为主的作战理念,积极探索军民一体、优势互补的可行性渠道。

Source URL:

http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2016/1226/c40531-28977153.html

A Summary of China ‘s Internet Security Situation in China in 2016 // 2016年中國中國互聯網安全形勢總結

A Summary of China ‘s Internet Security Situation in China in 2016

2016年中國中國互聯網安全形勢總結

19 APRIL 2017 BEIJING, People’s Republic of China

April 19, the National Computer Network Emergency Technology Processing Coordination Center (referred to as “National Internet Emergency Response Center”, the English referred to as “CNCERT”) released “China’s Internet security situation in 2016,” a review of China’s Internet macro security situation monitoring On the basis of the combination of network security warning and emergency response work, the paper focuses on analyzing and summarizing the Internet security situation of China in 2016 and predicting the hotspot of network security in 2017.

Analysis of Internet Security Monitoring Data in China in 2016

CNCs continued to monitor the macroeconomic situation of China’s cybersecurity. In 2016, the number of mobile Internet malicious programs was captured, the number of backdoor attacks and the number of security vulnerabilities were increased compared with 2015, and the number of Trojans and botnets was denied. Quantity, phishing and page tampering the number of pages have declined.

According to the sampling monitoring, about 70,000 Trojans and botnet control servers in 2016 control 1699 million hosts in our country, the number of control servers decreased by 8.0% compared with 2015, the number of domestic infection host decreased by 14.1% compared with 2015. The Among them, about 48,000 from outside the control server control of China’s 1499 million units in the host, from the United States the number of control servers in the first place, followed by Hong Kong, China and Japan.

In the botnet found in the detection of malicious programs and the formation of botnets, the size of more than 100 hosts in the number of botnets 4896, of which the size of more than 100,000 units in the number of botnets 52. According to the quantitative analysis of the distribution of Trojans and botnets in China, the top three were Guangdong Province (13.4% of the total number of infections in China), Jiangsu Province (9.2%) and Shandong Province (8.3 %). In order to effectively control the damage caused by the host of Trojans and botnets, in 2016, under the guidance of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, under the guidance of “Trojan and botnet monitoring and disposal mechanism”, CNCERT organization basic telecommunications companies, domain name service agencies, etc. successfully closed 1011 Control the larger botnets.

In 2016, CNCERT received more than 205 million mobile Internet malpractions through autonomous capture and vendor switching, an increase of 39.0% over 2015, and continued to maintain rapid growth in the past seven years. According to their malicious behavior classification, the top three were hooliganism, malicious deductions and tariff consumption class 1, accounting for 61.1%, respectively, 18.2% and 13.6%. CNCERT found that mobile Internet malicious program download links nearly 670,000, an increase of nearly 1.2 times compared with 2015, involving more than 22 million source of the source, IP address of more than 30,000, the number of malicious programs spread to 124 million times.

In 2016, CNCERT focused on the “album” category 2 Andrews and malicious pornographic software with malicious deductions and maliciously disseminated attributes that were spread by SMS and had malicious behavior such as stealing user messages and correspondence, and coordinated work The A total of 47,316 cases of such malicious programs were found in the year, and more than 1.01 million were collected, and 6045 domain names were used to disseminate malicious programs. 7645 malicious mailbox accounts for receiving user’s text messages and contacts were used to receive user text messages Malicious mobile phone number 6616, leaked users SMS and address book mail 222 million, seriously endangering the user’s personal information security and property security. Under the guidance of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, according to the “mobile Internet malicious program monitoring and disposal mechanism”, CNCERT organization of e-mail service providers, domain name registrar and other active coordination work to find the malicious mailbox account, malicious domain name, etc. Dispose of.

Second, 2016 China’s Internet security situation

In recent years, with China’s network security laws and regulations, management system of continuous improvement, China’s network security technology strength, personnel, international cooperation, and achieved remarkable results. In 2016, China’s Internet security situation is generally stable, the rapid development of network security industry, network security and protection capabilities have been improved, international cooperation to further strengthen the network security. But with cyberspace strategically

The increasing number of countries, the world’s major countries have set up cyberspace attack capability, the growing national network conflict, China’s cyberspace security challenges facing increasingly complex.

Domain name system security in good condition, anti-attack ability increased significantly. In 2016, China’s domain name service system security in good condition, no major security incidents. According to the sampling monitoring, 2016 years for China’s domain name system traffic scale of more than 1Gpbs DDoS attacks on the daily average of about 32 cases, did not affect the domain name resolution services in China, the basic telecommunications companies have not seriously affected the success rate of analysis Attack events, mainly with the domain name system to strengthen security measures, anti-DDoS attack ability significantly improved related. In June 2016, there were large-scale DDoS attacks against the global root domain name servers and their mirrors. Most of the root domain servers were affected to varying degrees. The domain name mirroring servers in China also suffered large-scale network traffic attacks at the same time. Due to emergency treatment in a timely manner, and the root zone top-level domain cache expiration time is often more than 1 day, the attack did not affect the domain name system network security.

For the industrial control system of network security attacks increasing, many important industrial control system security incidents should pay attention. In 2016, the world occurred more than the major areas of industrial accidents worthy of our country wake up. In August, Kaspersky Security Laboratories exposed the “ghoul” network attack against the industrial sector, which focused on the Middle East and other countries’ Industrial enterprises launched a targeted network intrusion; in December, the Ukrainian power grid once again experienced a power supply failure, according to the analysis of the origin of this malpractice “dark forces” variants.

China’s industrial control system is huge, security vulnerabilities, malicious detection, etc. to our industrial control system to bring some security risks. As of the end of 2016, CNVD included 1036 industrial malpractices, of which 173 were included in 2016, an increase of 38.4% over 2015. Industrial control system mainly exists buffer overflow, lack of access control mechanism, weak password, directory traversal and other loopholes risk. Through the analysis of network traffic, 2016 CNCERT cumulative monitoring to the network of industrial equipment fingerprint detection event more than 880,000 times, and found 60 countries from outside the 1610 IP address of China’s network of industrial equipment for fingerprint detection.

High-level persistent threat normalization, China’s attack is particularly serious threat. As of the end of 2016, domestic enterprises issued a senior Sustainability Threat (APT) study reported a total of 43 APT organizations, including targeted targets for China’s APT organizations have 36 4. From the attack to achieve the point of view, more APT attacks using engineering to achieve, that is, relying on commercial attack platform and the Internet black industry

Chain data and other mature resources to achieve APT attacks. This kind of attack not only reduces the technical and resource threshold of initiating APT attack, but also increases the difficulty of traceability analysis. In 2016, many of the important information system for the implementation of the APT attacks were exposed, including “white elephant action 5”, “Man Linghua attack action”, mainly in China’s education, energy, military and scientific research as the main target The In August 2016, the hacker organization “Shadow Brokers” published the Formula Organization 6 frequently used toolkits, including various firewall exploits, hacking tools and scripts involving Juniper, Flying Tower, Cisco, and Financial letter, Huawei and other manufacturers products. CNCERT released 11 software vulnerabilities (there are four suspected 0day vulnerability) for census analysis and found that the world has about 120,000 IP addresses carrying the relevant products of network equipment, of which China’s IP address of about 33,000, accounting for 27.8% of all IP addresses poses a serious potential threat to cyberspace security in China. In November 2016, the hacker organization “shadow broker” also announced a group has been attacked by the National Security Agency network control and IP address and domain name data, China is the most attacked countries, involving at least nine universities in China, 12 Energy, aviation, telecommunications and other important information systems departments and two government information centers.

A large number of networked smart devices were attacked by malicious programs to form botnets, which were used to initiate large traffic DDoS attacks. In recent years, with the intelligent wearable equipment, intelligent home, intelligent routers and other terminal equipment and network equipment, the rapid development and popularization, for the Internet of intelligent devices, the proportion of network attacks increased, the attackers use the Internet of things intelligent device vulnerabilities Access to device control rights, or other hacker underground transactions for user information data theft, network traffic hijacking, or for controlling the formation of large-scale botnets. CNCERT on-line monitoring of vehicle network security system analysis and found that some car network information service providers and related products, security vulnerabilities can lead to vehicle, location and vehicle owners information disclosure and vehicle remote control and other security risks. At the end of 2016, Mirai malicious programs were widely watched as a result of large-scale off-site events on the east coast of the United States and a large number of users of Deutsche Telekom visited Internet anomalies. Mirai is a typical use of Internet of things intelligent device vulnerabilities to penetrate infiltration to achieve the control of the device malicious code, the number of charged devices accumulated to a certain extent will form a huge “botnet”, known as “Mirai botnet.” And because of Internet of things intelligent devices are generally 24 hours online, infected with malicious programs are not easily perceived by the user, forming a “stable” attack source. CNC inspections of the Mirai botnet show that by the end of 2016, a total of 2526 control servers were deployed to control 125.4 million devices, which posed a serious potential security threat to the stable operation of the Internet. In addition, CNCERT also analyzed the Gafgyt botnet sampling analysis. In the fourth quarter of 2016, a total of 817 control servers were selected to control 425,000 devices, and more than 18,000 DDoS attacks were initiated, with peak traffic 5Gpbs more than 72 times the number of attacks.

Web site data and personal information leak is not uncommon, “derivative disaster” serious. Due to the disappearance of the traditional boundaries of the Internet, all kinds of data spread across the terminal, network, mobile phone and cloud, coupled with the interests of the Internet black industry chain driven by data leakage threats are increasing. In 2016, the domestic and international website data and personal information leakage incidents frequently, the political, economic and social impact gradually deepened, and even personal life safety has also been violated. In the United States, the United States election candidate Hillary’s mail leak, directly affect the US election process; Yahoo two account information disclosure involving about 1.5 billion personal accounts, resulting in US telecom operators Verizon $ 4.8 billion acquisition of Yahoo plans to shelve May even be canceled. In the country, China’s immune planning system network was malicious invasion, 200,000 children’s information was stolen and publicly sold online; information leakage led to frequent fraud cases, college entrance examination information leaks to take away the university students will soon enter the life of Xu Yuyu ; 2016 public security organs were detected more than 1,800 cases of infringement of personal information, seized 30 million pieces of personal information of various types of citizens. In addition, according to the news media reported that Russia, Mexico, Turkey, the Philippines, Syria, Kenya and other countries of the government website data leaked.

Mobile Internet malicious program more profitable, mobile Internet black industry chain has matured. In 2016, CNCERT received more than 205 million mobile Internet malpractions through autonomous capture and vendor exchange, up 39.0% from 2015 and continued to grow at a high rate in the past six years. Through malware behavior analysis, it was found that the number of applications for fraudulent, malicious deductions, lockdowns and other economic interests was 59.6% of the total number of malicious programs, nearly three times over 2015. From the spread of malicious programs found that fraudulent acts of fraudulent procedures mainly through SMS, advertising and network disk and other specific communication channels to spread, the number of infected users reached 24.93 million, causing significant economic losses. From the attack mode of malicious programs, it is found that the number of malicious programs that steal SMS verification codes is larger than that of SMS, and 10845 samples are obtained in the whole year. It shows the characteristics of simple production, fixed attack mode and huge profits. The mobile Internet industry Mature.

Extortion software raging, a serious threat to local data and intelligent equipment security. According to CNCERT monitoring found in 2016 in the traditional PC side, to capture extortion class malicious program sample of about 19,000, the number of a record high in recent years. Analysis of extortion software attack object found that extortion software has been gradually extended from the individual terminal equipment to business users, especially for high-value target blackmail situation

Heavy. For enterprise users, blackmail software exploits security vulnerabilities to attack, the enterprise database encryption and extortion, the end of 2016 open source MongoDB database was a blackmail software attacks, a large number of users affected. For personal terminal equipment, extortion software malicious behavior in the traditional PC and mobile terminals show obvious different characteristics: in the traditional PC side, mainly through the “encrypted data” to blackmail, that is, the user’s computer file encryption, stress users Purchase the decryption key; on the mobile side, mainly through the “encryption device” to blackmail, that is, remote lock the user mobile devices, so that users can not use the device, and to coerce users to pay the cost of unlocking. However, from the extortion of software transmission point of view, the traditional PC and mobile side show a common, mainly through e-mail, counterfeit normal application, QQ group, network disk, paste it, victims and other spread.

Three, 2017 worthy of attention to the hot spots

According to the analysis of the characteristics of China’s Internet security situation in 2016, CNCERT predicts that the hot spots that are worthy of attention in 2017 are as follows.

(A) cyberspace according to the law of governance more clear. On November 7, 2016, the Twenty-fourth Session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress passed the “Network Security Law” and came into effect on June 1, 2017. The Act has 7 chapters and 79 articles on cyberspace sovereignty, network products and service providers ‘security obligations, network operators’ safety obligations, personal information protection rules, critical information infrastructure security protection systems and important data cross-border transmission rules, etc. Has been clearly defined. It is expected that the departments will pay more attention to the propaganda and interpretation work of the “Network Security Law” in 2017, compile relevant supporting policies and regulations, implement various supporting measures, and make cyberspace according to law more clear.

(B) the use of Internet of things intelligent device network attacks will continue to increase. 2016 CNVD collection of intelligent networking equipment vulnerabilities 1117, mainly related to web cameras, intelligent routers, smart appliances, intelligent gateway and other equipment. The vulnerability type is mainly privilege to bypass, information disclosure, command execution, etc., which weak password (or built-in default password) vulnerability is easy to be used, the actual impact is very extensive, malicious code attack to use an important risk point. With the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, autopilot vehicles, the popularity of smart home appliances and the development of smart cities, the number of vulnerabilities in networked smart devices will increase significantly, and network attacks against or using intelligent networking devices will be more frequent.

(C) the Internet and the traditional industry integration caused by the security threat is more complex. With the deepening of China’s “Internet +” and “Made in China 2025” action plan, almost all traditional industries, traditional applications and services in China are being changed by the Internet, bringing innovation and development opportunities to various industries. In the process of integration innovation and development, the traditional industry closed mode gradually changed to open mode, but also the future of the Internet virtual network security events into real-world security threats. Internet finance, industrial Internet and other emerging industries rapid development, but triggered a new network security threats can not be ignored, the Internet financial integration of information flow and capital flow, the risk of information flow is likely to lead to loss of capital flow; industrial control system more For the intelligent, network, open Internet brings malicious sniffing behavior increased, the risk of malicious attacks continue to increase. Traditional Internet security and real-world security issues intertwined with the security threat is more complex, the consequences are more serious.

(D) personal information and important data protection will be more attention. In recent years, the development of Internet technology is extremely convenient and rich in our lives and work, online shopping, online job search, social platform, government services and other platforms are filled with a large number of personal detailed privacy information. Since 2011, China’s serious personal information on the leak of the event, especially in recent years, the case of network fraud, the victim’s details have been grasped by fraud, to social stability and serious harm. 2013 “Snowdon incident” and the follow-up of the US government has been a large-scale monitoring of the project, to stimulate countries to strengthen the protection of important data measures, strict norms of Internet data collection, use, storage and so on. China in the “Network Security Law” on the personal information protection rules, important data cross-border transmission has been clearly defined, is expected on personal information and important data protection of the detailed regulatory documents will be enacted, and effectively implement the protection measures.

(5) Network security threats Information sharing has attracted the attention of all parties. Timely comprehensive access to and analysis of network security threats, ahead of network security early warning and deployment of emergency response measures, fully embodies a national network security comprehensive defense capabilities. Through the network security threat information sharing, the use of collective knowledge and technical ability, is to achieve a comprehensive grasp of the network security threats an effective way. The United States as early as 1998 in the Clinton administration signed a presidential decree to encourage the government and enterprises to carry out network security information sharing, to the Obama administration is the network security information sharing is written into the government bill. In recent years, China attaches great importance to the work of network security information sharing, in the “Network Security Law” clearly put forward to promote the relevant departments, key information infrastructure operators and the relevant research institutions, network security services and other network security information sharing The However, in the face of complex and multi-dimensional data source information, how to carry out sharing and in-depth analysis efficiently, we need to establish a set of information security standards for network security threats based on large data analysis. At present, many organizations in our country have been engaged in the exploration and practice of information sharing of network security threats. The relevant national standards and industry standards have been formulated. CNCERT has also established a network security threat information sharing platform for sharing in the communication industry and security industry. jobs.

(6) the background of the network disputes will continue to heat up the degree of concern. At present, China’s Internet penetration rate has reached 53.2% 7, the public through the Internet to get the news more and more fast and convenient, people concerned about the global political hot spots are also rising. 2016 US presidential election “mail door” incident, the Russian hacker exposure of the World Anti-Doping Agency scandal, etc., allow netizens to feel organized, purposeful careful network attacks can have a serious impact on the politics of other countries, Will have a national background of the network disputes from the perspective of industry concerns extended to all Internet users. With a large number of countries continue to strengthen the network space military capacity building, there are national background of the network dispute event will be hot, the crisis frequently, the trend of popular discussion will continue to heat up.

(7) based on artificial intelligence network security technology research in full swing. In the third World Internet Conference, “World Internet leading technology results release activities” site, Microsoft, IBM, Google three major international technology giants show machine learning based on artificial intelligence technology, for us to describe a beautiful future of artificial intelligence. At present, the network attack events are endless, the means are complex, the purpose is complex, the shortage of network security personnel is difficult to cope with the rapid changes in the network security situation, and machine learning in the field of data analysis outstanding performance, artificial intelligence is considered in the network security will “Great as”. There are statistical agencies found that the 2016 “network security” and “artificial intelligence” co-appeared in the article the frequency of rapid rise, indicating that more and more discussions will be linked together with the two together. Based on the large data related to network security, artificial intelligence technology such as machine learning can make breakthrough progress in unknown threat discovery, network behavior analysis and network security warning.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

4月19日消息,國家計算機網絡應急技術處理協調中心(簡稱“國家互聯網應急中心”,英文簡稱“CNCERT”)發布《2016年我國互聯網網絡安全態勢綜述》,在對我國互聯網宏觀安全態勢監測的基礎上,結合網絡安全預警通報、應急處置工作實踐成果,著重分析和總結了2016年我國互聯網網絡安全狀況,並預測2017年網絡安全熱點問題。
一、2016年我國互聯網網絡安全監測數據分析
CNCERT持續對我國網絡安全宏觀狀況開展抽樣監測,2016年,移動互聯網惡意程序捕獲數量、網站後門攻擊數量以及安全漏洞收錄數量較2015年有所上升,而木馬和殭屍網絡感染數量、拒絕服務攻擊事件數量、網頁仿冒和網頁篡改頁面數量等均有所下降。
據抽樣監測,2016年約9.7萬個木馬和殭屍網絡控制服務器控制了我國境內1699萬餘台主機,控制服務器數量較2015年下降8.0%,境內感染主機數量較2015年下降了14.1%。 。其中,來自境外的約4.8萬個控制服務器控制了我國境內1499萬餘台主機,來自美國的控制服務器數量居首位,其次是中國香港和日本。
在監測發現的因感染惡意程序而形成的殭屍網絡中,規模在100台主機以上的殭屍網絡數量4896個,其中規模在10萬台以上的殭屍網絡數量52個。從我國境內感染木馬和殭屍網絡主機按地區分佈數量分析來看,排名前三位的分別是廣東省(占我國境內感染數量的13.4%)、江蘇省(佔9.2%)和山東省(佔8.3 %)。為有效控制木馬和殭屍網絡感染主機引發的危害,2016年,在工業和信息化部指導下,根據《木馬和殭屍網絡監測與處置機制》,CNCERT組織基礎電信企業、域名服務機構等成功關閉1011個控制規模較大的殭屍網絡。
2016年,CNCERT通過自主捕獲和廠商交換獲得移動互聯網惡意程序數量205萬餘個,較2015年增長39.0%,近7年來持續保持高速增長趨勢。按其惡意行為進行分類,前三位分別是流氓行為類、惡意扣費類和資費消耗類1,佔比分別為61.1%、18.2%和13.6%。 CNCERT發現移動互聯網惡意程序下載鏈接近67萬條,較2015年增長近1.2倍,涉及的傳播源域名22萬餘個、IP地址3萬餘個,惡意程序傳播次數達1.24億次。
2016年,CNCERT重點對通過短信傳播,且具有竊取用戶短信和通信錄等惡意行為的“相冊”類2安卓惡意程序及具有惡意扣費、惡意傳播屬性的色情軟件進行監測,並開展協調處置工作。全年共發現此類惡意程序47316個,累計感染用戶超過101萬人,用於傳播惡意程序的域名6045個,用於接收用戶短信和通訊錄的惡意郵箱賬戶7645個,用於接收用戶短信的惡意手機號6616個,洩露用戶短信和通訊錄的郵件222萬封,嚴重危害用戶個人信息安全和財產安全。在工業和信息化部指導下,根據《移動互聯網惡意程序監測與處置機制》,CNCERT組織郵箱服務商、域名註冊商等積極開展協調處置工作,對發現的惡意郵箱賬號、惡意域名等進行關停處置。
二、2016年我國互聯網網絡安全狀況
近年來,隨著我國網絡安全法律法規、管理制度的不斷完善,我國在網絡安全技術實力、人才隊伍、國際合作等方面取得了明顯的成效。 2016年,我國互聯網網絡安全狀況總體平穩,網絡安全產業快速發展,網絡安全防護能力得到提升,網絡安全國際合作進一步加強。但隨著網絡空間戰略地
位的日益提升,世界主要國家紛紛建立網絡空間攻擊能力,國家級網絡衝突日益增多,我國網絡空間面臨的安全挑戰日益複雜。
域名系統安全狀況良好,防攻擊能力明顯上升。 2016年,我國域名服務系統安全狀況良好,無重大安全事件發生。據抽樣監測,2016年針對我國域名系統的流量規模達1Gpbs以上的DDoS攻擊事件日均約32起,均未對我國域名解析服務造成影響,在基礎電信企業側也未發生嚴重影響解析成功率的攻擊事件,主要與域名系統普遍加強安全防護措施,抗DDoS攻擊能力顯著提升相關。 2016年6月,發生針對全球根域名服務器及其鏡像的大規模DDoS攻擊,大部分根域名服務器受到不同程度的影響,位於我國的域名根鏡像服務器也在同時段遭受大規模網絡流量攻擊。因應急處置及時,且根區頂級域緩存過期時間往往超過1天,此次攻擊未對我國域名系統網絡安全造成影響。
針對工業控制系統的網絡安全攻擊日益增多,多起重要工控系統安全事件應引起重視。 2016年,全球發生的多起工控領域重大事件值得我國警醒。 3月,美國紐約鮑曼水壩的一個小型防洪控制系統遭攻擊;8月,卡巴斯基安全實驗室揭露了針對工控行業的“食屍鬼”網絡攻擊活動,該攻擊主要對中東和其他國家的工業企業發起定向網絡入侵;12月,烏克蘭電網再一次經歷了供電故障,據分析本次故障緣起惡意程序“黑暗勢力”的變種。
我國工控系統規模巨大,安全漏洞、惡意探測等均給我國工控系統帶來一定安全隱患。截至2016年年底,CNVD共收錄工控漏洞1036條,其中2016年收錄了173個,較2015年增長了38.4%。工控系統主要存在緩衝區溢出、缺乏訪問控制機制、弱口令、目錄遍歷等漏洞風險。通過對網絡流量分析發現,2016年度CNCERT累計監測到聯網工控設備指紋探測事件88萬餘次,並發現來自境外60個國家的1610個IP地址對我國聯網工控設備進行了指紋探測。
高級持續性威脅常態化,我國面臨的攻擊威脅尤為嚴重。截止到2016年底,國內企業發布高級持續性威脅(APT)研究報告共提及43個APT組織,其中針對我國境內目標發動攻擊的APT組織有36個4。從攻擊實現方式來看,更多APT攻擊採用工程化實現,即依托商業攻擊平台和互聯網黑色產業
鏈數據等成熟資源實現 APT攻擊。這類攻擊不僅降低了發起APT攻擊的技術和資源門檻,而且加大了受害方溯源分析的難度。 2016年,多起針對我國重要信息系統實施的APT攻擊事件被曝光,包括“白象行動5”、“蔓靈花攻擊行動”等,主要以我國教育、能源、軍事和科研領域為主要攻擊目標。 2016年8月,黑客組織“影子經紀人(Shadow Brokers)”公佈了方程式組織6經常使用的工具包,包含各種防火牆的漏洞利用代碼、黑客工具和腳本,涉及Juniper、飛塔、思科、天融信、華為等廠商產品。 CNCERT對公佈的11個產品漏洞(有4個疑似為0day漏洞)進行普查分析,發現全球有約12萬個IP地址承載了相關產品的網絡設備,其中我國境內IP地址有約3.3萬個,佔全部IP地址的27.8%,對我國網絡空間安全造成嚴重的潛在威脅。 2016年11月,黑客組織“影子經紀人”又公佈一組曾受美國國家安全局網絡攻擊與控制的IP地址和域名數據,中國是被攻擊最多的國家,涉及我國至少9所高校,12家能源、航空、電信等重要信息系統部門和2個政府部門信息中心。
大量聯網智能設備遭惡意程序攻擊形成殭屍網絡,被用於發起大流量DDoS攻擊。近年來,隨著智能可穿戴設備、智能家居、智能路由器等終端設備和網絡設備的迅速發展和普及利用,針對物聯網智能設備的網絡攻擊事件比例呈上升趨勢,攻擊者利用物聯網智能設備漏洞可獲取設備控制權限,或用於用戶信息數據竊取、網絡流量劫持等其他黑客地下產業交易,或用於被控制形成大規模殭屍網絡。 CNCERT對車聯網系統安全性進行在線監測分析,發現部分車聯網信息服務商及相關產品存在安全漏洞,可導致車輛、位置及車主信息洩露和車輛被遠程控制等安全風險。 2016年底,因美國東海岸大規模斷網事件和德國電信大量用戶訪問網絡異常事件,Mirai惡意程序受到廣泛關注。 Mirai是一款典型的利用物聯網智能設備漏洞進行入侵滲透以實現對設備控制的惡意代碼,被控設備數量積累到一定程度將形成一個龐大的“殭屍網絡”,稱為“Mirai殭屍網絡”。又因物聯網智能設備普遍是24小時在線,感染惡意程序後也不易被用戶察覺,形成了“穩定”的攻擊源。 CNCERT對Mirai殭屍網絡進行抽樣監測顯示,截至2016年年底,共發現2526台控制服務器控制了125.4萬餘台物聯網智能設備,對互聯網的穩定運行形成了嚴重的潛在安全威脅。此外,CNCERT還對Gafgyt殭屍網絡進行抽樣檢測分析,在2016年第四季度,共發現817台控制服務器控制了42.5萬台物聯網智能設備,累計發起超過1.8萬次的DDoS攻擊,其中峰值流量在5Gpbs以上的攻擊次數高達72次。
網站數據和個人信息洩露屢見不鮮,“衍生災害”嚴重。由於互聯網傳統邊界的消失,各種數據遍布終端、網絡、手機和雲上,加上互聯網黑色產業鏈的利益驅動,數據洩露威脅日益加劇。 2016年,國內外網站數據和個人信息洩露事件頻發,對政治、經濟、社會的影響逐步加深,甚至個人生命安全也受到侵犯。在國外,美國大選候選人希拉里的郵件洩露,直接影響到美國大選的進程;雅虎兩次賬戶信息洩露涉及約15億的個人賬戶,致使美國電信運營商威瑞森48億美元收購雅虎計劃擱置甚至可能取消。在國內,我國免疫規劃系統網絡被惡意入侵,20萬兒童信息被竊取並在網上公開售賣;信息洩露導致精準詐騙案件頻發,高考考生信息洩露間接奪去即將步入大學的女學生徐玉玉的生命;2016年公安機關共偵破侵犯個人信息案件1800餘起,查獲各類公民個人信息300億餘條。此外,據新聞媒體報導,俄羅斯、墨西哥、土耳其、菲律賓、敘利亞、肯尼亞等多個國家政府的網站數據發生了洩漏。
移動互聯網惡意程序趨利性更加明確,移動互聯網黑色產業鏈已經成熟。 2016年,CNCERT通過自主捕獲和廠商交換獲得移動互聯網惡意程序數量205萬餘個,較2015年增長39.0%,近6年來持續保持高速增長趨勢。通過惡意程序行為分析發現,以誘騙欺詐、惡意扣費、鎖屏勒索等攫取經濟利益為目的的應用程序驟增,佔惡意程序總數的59.6%,較2015年增長了近三倍。從惡意程序傳播途徑發現,誘騙欺詐行為的惡意程序主要通過短信、廣告和網盤等特定傳播渠道進行傳播,感染用戶數達到2493萬人,造成重大經濟損失。從惡意程序的攻擊模式發現,通過短信方式傳播竊取短信驗證碼的惡意程序數量佔比較大,全年獲得相關樣本10845個,表現出製作簡單、攻擊模式固定、暴利等特點,移動互聯網黑色產業鏈已經成熟。
敲詐勒索軟件肆虐,嚴重威脅本地數據和智能設備安全。根據CNCERT監測發現,2016年在傳統PC端,捕獲敲詐勒索類惡意程序樣本約1.9萬個,數量創近年來新高。對敲詐勒索軟件攻擊對象分析發現,勒索軟件已逐漸由針對個人終端設備延伸至企業用戶,特別是針對高價值目標的勒索情況嚴
重。針對企業用戶方面,勒索軟件利用安全漏洞發起攻擊,對企業數據庫進行加密勒索,2016年底開源MongoDB數據庫遭一輪勒索軟件攻擊,大量的用戶受到影響。針對個人終端設備方面,敲詐勒索軟件惡意行為在傳統PC端和移動端表現出明顯的不同特點:在傳統PC端,主要通過“加密數據”進行勒索,即對用戶電腦中的文件加密,脅迫用戶購買解密密鑰;在移動端,主要通過“加密設備”進行勒索,即遠程鎖住用戶移動設備,使用戶無法正常使用設備,並以此脅迫用戶支付解鎖費用。但從敲詐勒索軟件傳播方式來看,傳統PC端和移動端表現出共性,主要是通過郵件、仿冒正常應用、QQ群、網盤、貼吧、受害者等傳播。
三、2017年值得關注的熱點
根據對2016年我國互聯網網絡安全形勢特點的分析,CNCERT預測2017年值得關注的熱點方向主要如下。
(一)網絡空間依法治理脈絡更為清晰。 2016年11月7日第十二屆全國人大常委會第二十四次會議表決通過《網絡安全法》,並將於2017年6月1日起施行。該法有7章79條,對網絡空間主權、網絡產品和服務提供者的安全義務、網絡運營者的安全義務、個人信息保護規則、關鍵信息基礎設施安全保護製度和重要數據跨境傳輸規則等進行了明確規定。預計2017年各部門將更加重視《網絡安全法》的宣傳和解讀工作,編制出台相關配套政策法規,落實各項配套措施,網絡空間依法治理脈絡將更為清晰。
(二)利用物聯網智能設備的網絡攻擊事件將繼續增多。 2016年CNVD收錄物聯網智能設備漏洞1117個,

(三)互聯網與傳統產業融合引發的安全威脅更為複雜。隨著我國“互聯網+”、“中國製造2025”行動計劃的深入推進,我國幾乎所有的傳統行業、傳統應用與服務都在被互聯網改變,給各個行業帶來了創新和發展機會。在融合創新發展的過程中,傳統產業封閉的模式逐漸轉變為開放模式,也將以往互聯網上虛擬的網絡安全事件轉變為現實世界安全威脅。互聯網金融、工業互聯網等融合的新興行業快速發展,但引發的新的網絡安全威脅也不容忽略,互聯網金融整合了信息流和資金流,信息流的風險很可能引發資金流損失;工業控制系統更為智能化、網絡化,開放互聯帶來的惡意嗅探行為增多,被惡意攻擊的風險不斷加大。傳統互聯網安全與現實世界安全問題相交織引發的安全威脅更為複雜,產生的後果也更為嚴重。
(四)個人信息和重要數據保護將更受重視。近年來,互聯網技術的發展極大的方便和豐富了我們的生活和工作,網上購物、網上求職、社交平台、政府服務等平台上充斥著大量的個人詳細隱私信息。自2011年以來我國關於嚴重個人信息洩露的事件不絕於耳,特別是近年來的網絡詐騙案件中,受害人的詳細信息都被詐騙分子所掌握,給社會安定帶來嚴重危害。 2013年 “斯諾登事件”及後續相繼爆出的美國政府大範圍監聽項目,刺激著各國加強重要數據的保護措施,嚴格規範互聯網數據的收集、使用、存儲等。我國在《網絡安全法》中對個人信息保護規則、重要數據跨境傳輸進行了明確規定,預計關於個人信息和重要數據信息保護的詳細規範性文件將製定出台,切實落實保護措施。
(五)網絡安全威脅信息共享工作備受各方關注。及時全面獲取和分析網絡安全威脅,提前做好網絡安全預警和部署應急響應措施,充分體現了一個國家網絡安全綜合防禦能力。通過網絡安全威脅信息共享,利用集體的知識和技術能力,是實現全面掌握網絡安全威脅情況的有效途徑。美國早在1998年的克林頓政府時期就簽署了總統令,鼓勵政府與企業開展網絡安全信息共享,到奧巴馬政府時期更是將網絡安全信息共享寫入了政府法案。近年來,我國高度重視網絡安全信息共享工作,在《網絡安全法》中明確提出了促進有關部門、關鍵信息基礎設施的運營者以及有關研究機構、網絡安全服務機構等之間的網絡安全信息共享。但面對紛繁複雜的、多維度的數據源信息,如何高效地開展共享和深入分析,需建立一套基於大數據分析的網絡安全威脅信息共享標準。目前,我國很多機構已經在開展網絡安全威脅信息共享的探索與實踐,相關國家標準和行業標準已在製定中,CNCERT也建立了網絡安全威脅信息共享平台,在通信行業和安全行業內進行相關共享工作。
(六)有國家背景的網絡爭端受關注度將繼續升溫。目前,我國互聯網普及率已經達到53.2%7,民眾通過互聯網獲得的新聞資訊越來越快捷方便,民眾關注全球政治熱點的熱度也不斷高漲。 2016年美國總統大選“郵件門”事件、俄羅斯黑客曝光世界反興奮劑機構醜聞事件等,都讓網民真切感受到有組織、有目的的一場縝密的網絡攻擊可以對他國政治產生嚴重的影響,將有國家背景的網絡爭端從行業領域關注視角延伸到了全體網民。隨著大量的國家不斷強化網絡空間軍事能力建設,有國家背景的網絡爭端事件將會熱點不斷、危機頻出,全民討論的趨勢將會持續升溫。
(七)基於人工智能的網絡安全技術研究全面鋪開。在第三屆世界互聯網大會“世界互聯網領先科技成果發布活動”現場,微軟、IBM、谷歌三大國際科技巨頭展示了基於機器學習的人工智能技術,為我們描繪了人工智能美好的未來。目前,網絡攻擊事件層出不窮、手段多樣、目的複雜,較為短缺的網絡安全人才難以應對變化過快的網絡安全形勢,而機器學習在數據分析領域的出色表現,人工智能被認為在網絡安全方面將會“大有作為”。有研究機構8統計發現,2016年“網絡安全”與“人工智能”兩詞共同出現在文章中的頻率快速上升,表明越來越多的討論將二者聯繫在一起共同關注。以網絡安全相關的大數據為基礎,利用機器學習等人工智能技術,能夠在未知威脅發現、網絡行為分析、網絡安全預警等方面取得突破性進展。

中國軍事戰雲 ~ Chinese Military Use of the Battle Cloud

中國軍事戰雲 ~ Chinese Military Use of the Battle Cloud

“Cloud” is a metaphor of the network, the Internet, “cloud concept” is one of the hottest high-tech concept in recent years, its Internet, efficient, shared and other characteristics, not only profound impact and change our lives, Is also promoting major changes in the military field. In 2013, the US Air Force for the first time the “cloud concept” into the field of operations, put forward the “operational cloud” concept, and quickly get the US Department of Defense, Navy and other military recognition, and gradually become the US military response to the 21st century, a new information war Strategy.

Why –

Intended to build the new US military superiority

In the 21st century, the US military has launched a number of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria in the name of anti-terrorism and the suppression of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Every time the war is almost entirely dominated by powerful information and firepower, Quickly won the war. But the US military has a clear sense of this: the above war a few US military did not encounter a truly strong opponent, the war in the United States to grasp the absolute air power and the right to information under the low confrontation environment, the future if the loss of absolute space and information advantages , The US military will be difficult to maintain control of the battlefield. The US military believes that if you want to maintain a sustained battlefield advantage in future wars, facing an unprecedented “threat and challenge”:

Rival strong “anti-entry / regional denial” threat. The US military believes that its information in previous local wars, the advantages of firepower, mainly rely on a strong space-based information systems, large-scale maritime combat platform, joint command and control center, etc., and in the “opponents into the area and the ability to continue Enhance the “background, especially in the face of a large number of” precision-guided long-range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles “threat, these traditional strengths and the strength of the US military to rely on these forces formed by the combat style” will not be renewed, “” opponents Can be a small number of key nodes through the attack quickly paralyzed US military combat power system.

The Challenges of Advanced Combat Weapons and Backward Combat. In the new century, after a large number of equipment F-22 advanced stealth fighters, the US military has ushered in F-35 fighters, DDG-1000 missile destroyers, Ford-class aircraft carrier and other highly informative weapons and equipment. But the appearance of the US military command and control, but also remain in the 2003 “free Iraq” action, highly dependent on satellite, early warning aircraft and other core equipment platform “network-centric war” era. Former US Air Force Secretary Mike Wayne exclaimed: “Just as the use of the 20th century mechanized forces in the First World War was fighting in the 19th century, we now have the danger of fighting in the twentieth century in the twentieth century. “The US military in urgent need of new operational theory to activate the new information technology equipment combat potential,” to regain the US military and rival superiority. ”

Combat power to maintain the challenges with the defense budget tightening. In the United States “financial crisis” “debt crisis” and “national security needs continue to grow” and other factors, the US military arms are also caught in financial dilemma. In the same report, the US Air Force is mainly from the old A-10, F-15/16, B-1, B-1, the first deputy chief of staff, 52 aircraft and B-2 and a small number of F-22, F-35, not enough to meet the opponent’s “anti-entry and regional denial” capabilities, and called to “change strategy” to deal with “available for defense resources The proportion of decline “challenge.

These “threats and challenges” that the US military consider themselves are the context of the concept of “operational cloud”.

Core concept –

To achieve a variety of platforms cross-domain joint operations

In the face of these new “threats and challenges”, in January 2013, the US Air Force Air Combat Command Commander Michael Ostić first proposed the “operational cloud” concept program. In 2014, David de Putura on its basis, the “operational cloud” concept of a comprehensive program, pointed out: “similar to the way cloud computing, ‘combat cloud’ is a kind of military air force use Decentralized air combat, in the evolution of the data chain, anti-jamming communication systems and new targeting tools to support the realization of the air, ground, sea and space field information sharing capabilities jump, and thus maximize the stealth aircraft, accurate Combat weapons, advanced command and control systems, and the combined use of unmanned systems to create large, modular and flexible combat capabilities to ensure that enemies’ attacks on single combat units will not paralyze US operations.

In the same year, the United States “Aviation Week” released a “operational cloud” concept map, described by the orbital space reconnaissance / communications / navigation satellites, airborne early warning aircraft, F-15/16 fighter, maritime aviation battle group, and in-depth integrated air defense system F-22/35 stealth fighter, RQ-180 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, new long-range bomber (LRS-B) and other multi-dimensional combat unit, jointly build the “air superiority cloud” development prospects, more clearly show the US military “combat Cloud “concept of the whole picture.

From the above US military interpretation and description of the concept of “operational cloud”, we can roughly analyze the characteristics of the US military “operational cloud” and its basic ideas to deal with “threats and challenges”

Battlefield information cross – domain integration. “Combat cloud” relying on “evolving data link, anti-jamming communication system” and other advanced battlefield information network, and “new targeting tool” and other new battlefield sensor system, large data and cloud computing and other information network technology support , Will be widely distributed in space, near the space, air, ground, sea and underwater combat platform of the battlefield intelligence information integration, and real-time seamless operation in the various areas of the platform on-demand distribution. “Combat cloud” formed by the “information sharing capabilities”, both to ensure that the US military on the battlefield on demand is highly transparent, but also to avoid the “anti-entry / regional denial” ability of opponents, its space-based information system , Large-scale maritime combat platform, joint command and control center and other key information nodes “break a little, paralysis of a” situation. The US military envisages that in the “battle cloud” system, the absence of any one or more battlefield nodes will not decisively influence the sharing and distribution of information on the unity of its battlefield.

Group strength distribution operations. With the traditional combat forces of the air forces according to the platform attribute classification allocation, according to the administrative means of combining different ways, “combat cloud” through the “continuous evolution of the data chain, anti-jamming communication system”, the arms of the air force to ” Decentralized air combat form “, according to real-time task requirements, online optimization configuration combination, the formation of” modular “group strength. Each group of forces in a highly integrated cross-domain integration of information support, through the “operational cloud” system of efficient scheduling and control, distribution operations. This group of forces distribution mode of operation, not only inherited the “network-centric war” to obtain the advantages of information, and further developed from the information to the fire distribution, target damage transformation advantages, significantly reduced the combat ” – Review “cycle chain, comprehensively enhance the combat effectiveness of US military information equipment.

Cross – platform platform synergies. Through the “battle cloud” battlefield information cross-domain integration capabilities, three generations of four generations of combat platform to gain dive into the enemy of the five generations of stealth combat platform, unmanned combat platform target information, to achieve an effective blow to the depth of the battlefield; But also to get three generations of four generations of combat platform for long-range fire support, to make up for their own lack of volatility. “Combat cloud” of this inter-generation platform synergies, is considered the US military to deal with “power and financial dilemma” an important means. In September 2014, the outgoing Michael Ostić at the annual meeting of the American Air Force Association made it clear that the US Air Force did not have enough budget to form a full five fleet, to fulfill the role of the Air Force, the highest priority The task is to achieve the “four generations and five generations” of information fusion, collaborative operations.

Development status –

Is changing from concept to actual action

As soon as possible to the “operational cloud” concept program into a practical state, in the United States Department of Defense co-ordination and traction, the US military arms and arms are in line with their own military functions and equipment characteristics, to promote their own “combat cloud” project construction and experiment verification.

Ministry of Defense steadily traction “cloud” infrastructure and conceptual improvement. As early as 2009, the US Department of Defense proposed a concept of data sharing at sea, air and space, and tried to apply the increasingly sophisticated Internet technology to tactical intelligence. In July 2012, the US Department of Defense Chief Information Officer signed the “Ministry of Defense cloud computing strategy” to the military strategy in the form of advancing the process, and continued to carry out “cloud” related storage facilities, computing platform and software services. At present, the US Department of Defense has identified this concept as a “war cloud”, and from the arms and arms, industrial sector and academia deployed personnel, work together to create a perfect “combat cloud” concept program, the ultimate goal is to form an arch Data network, expansion and upgrading of the existing “global information grid” to achieve the maritime warships, combat aircraft, space satellite real-time data sharing.

Each army and arms competing to carry out “combat cloud” project construction. The Air Force is the pioneer of the concept of “operational cloud”, which argues that the key to achieving the “operational cloud” is information fusion and the focus of the “Sky Advantage Cloud” on F-15/16 and F-22/35 Five generations of information on the exchange of information. In 2014, the “Multi-Domain Adaptive System (MAPS) Program” was launched to attempt to integrate the F16-16 Link16 data link, the F-22 IFDL data link, and the F-35’s MADL data link to achieve battlefield data Real-time exchange. US Navy also through the “Naval Integrated Fire Control and Air Defense (NIFC-CA) program” to achieve its use of air E-2D early warning aircraft or sea “Aegis” ship and other combat platforms for the F / A-18E / F and F- 35C and other carrier-based aircraft and the “standard” series of ship-to-air missiles to provide targeted information, and even command the future of the sixth generation F / A-XX multi-purpose fighter aircraft to launch weapons vision. Although the Navy project is not called “combat cloud” due to military interests, the project emphasizes multi-platform information cross-domain integration has a typical “cloud” features. In addition, the US Marine Corps also launched the implementation of its “expeditionary combat sea tactical cloud” project construction.

“Combat cloud” combat mode test verification has been in full swing. September 23, 2014, the US Air Force F-22 for the first time led the joint air raid fleet, the Syrian territory of the “Islamic countries” extreme organizational goals of air strikes. After the completion of the task, when the US Air Operations Commander Mike Hustage in an interview with “defense headlines”, said, “generally believed that stealth is a symbol of the five generations of machines, in fact, the focus is on ‘integration’,” Fusion “makes the F-22 fundamentally different from other platforms,” ​​”Fusion” is the fundamental feature of the five generations of machines, “” Five generations of machines in front of reconnaissance detection targets, and then let four generations of machines in the area to fight it, you must have ‘combat Cloud ‘, which has the ability to transfer data back and forth. ” The position, but also directly proved that the US Air Force is actively against the “combat cloud” combat mode to carry out actual test verification.

(Author: Air Force Military Theory Institute)

Edit comments

Jump on the “cloud” end of the wind and thunder

Huyongbo

When we shop online, the website will be based on the previous shopping records to determine our purchase preferences, push a lot of commodity information; when we browse the news, the software will be based on our reading habits, “good” Directional push content topic … … these phenomena are that we have come to a cloud computing era.

“Combat cloud” reason to enter our topic vision, not only because it frequently appeared in the latest US combat theory, everywhere revealed against the “system of combat” thinking, more importantly, it represents the US military cloud computing used in the field of military the latest achievements, reflecting the US military use of scientific and technological achievements to maximize the effectiveness of combat a train of thought.

Like many high-tech, cloud computing first appeared in the commercial field. In August 2006, Google CEO Eric Schmidt first proposed the “cloud computing” concept. Soon, the US military on this new technology showed a strong interest. In 2008, the US Department of Defense and Hewlett-Packard Company to establish a cloud computing infrastructure. Then, the United States air, sea, land and other military services are signed with commercial companies related to cloud computing systems. The US military’s passion for cloud computing has a strong background in the field of information technology, but it also reflects their keen sense of smell and rapid transformation of the latest cutting-edge technology.

In attending the plenary session of the PLA delegation at the Second Session of the 12th National People’s Congress, the Chairman stressed that “it is necessary to take the initiative to discover, cultivate and use the cutting-edge technology that can serve the national defense and army building to capture the potential growth point of military capability development”. Obviously, to promote the field of cloud computing military and civilian collaboration innovation, we are promising. Because, compared to the United States and other developed countries in the field of cloud computing development, China is not backward, some domestic companies have a more mature use of experience. The key is how to combine our military reality, to achieve the transformation of cloud computing technology in the military field.

Of course, we develop the use of cloud computing technology, we must learn from the experience of foreign troops, but not step by step also cloning. The practice of the US military is only to provide a model used. In the era of information revolution boom, through the core key technological breakthrough is possible to achieve “corner overtaking”. Dare to hit the water flow, Fang Xian hero character.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

“雲”是對網絡、互聯網的一種比喻說法,“雲概念”則是近年來最火的高科技概念之一,其互聯、高效、共享等特質,不但深刻影響和改變著我們的生活,也正在推動軍事領域的重大變革。 2013年,美空軍首次將“雲概念”引入作戰領域,提出“作戰雲”概念,並迅速得到美國防部、海軍及其他軍種的認可,逐漸成為美軍應對21世紀下一場信息化戰爭的新方略。

緣何提出——

意在打造美軍新的跨代優勢

進入21世紀,美軍先後以反恐和製止大規模殺傷性武器擴散等名義在阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亞和敘利亞發動多場戰爭,每次戰爭美國幾乎都憑藉強大的信息、火力優勢,完全掌控戰場局面,快速取得戰爭勝利。但美軍高層對此有著清醒意識:以上幾場戰爭美軍並未遇到真正強大的對手,戰爭在美軍掌握絕對製空權和製信息權的低對抗環境下進行,未來倘若喪失絕對的空天和信息優勢,美軍將很難保持對戰場的控制。美軍認為,若想在未來戰爭中保持持續的戰場優勢,面臨著前所未有的“威脅和挑戰”:

對手強大“反進入/區域拒止”能力的威脅。美軍認為,其在歷次局部戰爭中所仰仗的信息、火力優勢,主要依托強大的天基信息系統、大型海上作戰平台、聯合指揮控制中心等獲得,而在“對手反進入與區域拒止能力不斷提升”的背景下,尤其是面對大量“精確制導遠程巡航導彈和彈道導彈”威脅,這些傳統的優勢力量,以及美軍依托這些優勢力量所形成的作戰樣式“都將不可續存”,“對手可以通過對少數關鍵節點的攻擊迅速癱瘓美軍的作戰力量體系”。

先進作戰武器與落後作戰方式的挑戰。進入新世紀,在大量裝備F-22先進隱身戰機後,美軍又先後迎來F-35戰機、DDG-1000導彈驅逐艦、福特級航母等高度信息化武器裝備。但綜觀美軍的作戰指揮與控制,還停留在2003年“自由伊拉克”行動時,高度依賴衛星、預警機等核心裝備平台的“網絡中心戰”時代。美國前空軍部長麥克·韋恩就驚呼:“正如第一次世界大戰使用20世紀的機械化部隊卻在以19世紀的方式作戰,我們現在同樣存在以20世紀的方式在21世紀作戰的危險。 ”美軍急需新的作戰理論來激活新型信息化裝備的作戰潛能,“重拾美​​軍與對手的跨代優勢”。

作戰力量保持與國防預算緊縮的挑戰。在美國“金融危機”“債務危機”和“國家安全需求不斷增長”等多重因素影響下,美軍各軍兵種也陷入財政窘境。美空軍前情報主管、第一副參謀長大衛·德普圖拉在一份報告中指出,目前美軍空中力量主要由老舊的A-10、F-15/16、B-1、B- 52飛機和B-2以及少量的F-22、F-35組成,不足以應對21世紀對手的“反進入與區域拒止”能力,並呼籲要“改變方略”以應對“可用於國防的資源比重下降”的挑戰。

美軍自認為的這些“威脅和挑戰”,正是其提出“作戰雲”概念的背景。

核心理念——

實現多種平台跨域聯合作戰

面對這些新的“威脅和挑戰”,2013年1月,美空軍空中作戰司令部司令邁克爾·奧斯蒂奇首次提出“作戰雲”概念方案。 2014年,大衛·德普圖拉在其基礎上,對“作戰雲”概念方案進行了全面闡述,指出:“類似於雲計算的方式,’作戰雲’是一種各軍種的空中力量採用分散的空中作戰形式,在不斷進化的數據鏈、抗干擾通信系統和新的瞄準工具等支持下,實現空中、地面、海上和太空領域信息共享能力的躍升,進而最大程度地發揮隱身飛機、精確打擊武器、先進指揮與控制系統以及有人與無人系統結合的優勢,創造出規模化、模塊化的靈活作戰能力,並以此確保敵人對單一作戰單元的攻擊不會癱瘓美軍的作戰行動。”

同年,美國《航空周刊》發布了“作戰雲”構想圖,描述了由在軌太空偵察/通信/導航衛星,空中預警機、F-15/16戰鬥機,海上航空戰鬥群,與深入對方綜合防空系統區的F-22/35隱身戰機、RQ-180無人偵察機、新型遠程轟炸機(LRS-B)等多維作戰單元,共同構建的“空中優勢雲”發展遠景,更加清晰地展現了美軍“作戰雲”概念全貌。

從以上美軍對於“作戰雲”概念的闡釋和描述,我們可以粗略探析美軍“作戰雲”的特徵和其應對“威脅和挑戰”的基本思路:

戰場信息跨域融合。 “作戰雲”依托“不斷進化的數據鏈、抗干擾通信系統”等先進的戰場信息網絡,和“新的瞄準工具”等新型戰場傳感系統,在大數據和雲計算等信息網絡技術的支撐下,將廣泛分佈於太空、臨近空間、空中、地面、海上和水下各域作戰平台的戰場情報信息一體融合,並實時無縫地在各域作戰平台按需分發。 “作戰雲”所形成的這種“信息共享能力”,既保證了美軍對戰場的按需高度透明,同時也避免了具備“反進入/區域拒止”能力的對手,對其天基信息系統、大型海上作戰平台、聯合指揮控制中心等關鍵信息節點“破一點、癱一片”的局面。美軍設想,在“作戰雲”體系中,任何一個和多個戰場節點的缺失,都不會決定性地影響其戰場統一態勢信息的共享和分發。

群組力量分佈作戰。與傳統作戰各軍兵種空中力量按平台屬性分類編配、按行政手段組合的方式不同,“作戰雲”通過“不斷進化的數據鏈、抗干擾通信系統”,將各軍兵種的空中力量以“分散的空中作戰形式”,根據實時任務需求,在線優化配置組合,形成“模塊化”的群組力量。各群組力量在高度一體跨域融合的信息支撐下,通過“作戰雲”體系的高效調度和管控,分佈實施作戰。這種群組力量分佈作戰的模式,既繼承了“網絡中心戰”獲取信息的優勢,又進一步發展了從信息向火力分配、目標毀傷轉化的優勢,大幅縮減了作戰的“偵-控-打-評”週期鏈,全面提升了美軍信息化裝備的作戰效能。

跨代平台協同增效。通過“作戰雲”的戰場信息跨域融合能力,三代四代作戰平台能夠獲得潛入敵縱深的五代隱身作戰平台、無人作戰平台的目標指示信息,實現對縱深戰場的有效打擊;五代隱身作戰平台也能夠獲得三代四代作戰平台的遠程火力支援,彌補自身載彈量不足的劣勢。 “作戰雲”的這種跨代平台協同增效,被認為是美軍應對“力量與財務困局”的重要手段。 2014年9月,即將離任的邁克爾·奧斯蒂奇在美國空軍協會年會上明確表示,美國空軍沒有足夠的預算來組建一支全五代機隊,要履行好空軍的職能,最優先的任務是實現“四代與五代”的信息融合、協同作戰。

發展現狀——

正在由概念向實戰行動轉變

為盡快地將“作戰雲”概念方案轉化到實用狀態,在美國防部的統籌和牽引下,美軍各軍兵種都在結合自身軍種職能和裝備特色,推進自己的“作戰雲”項目建設和實驗驗證。

國防部穩步牽引“雲”基礎建設和概念完善。早在2009年,美國防部就提出了覆蓋海上、空中、太空的數據共享概念,嘗試將日益成熟的互聯網技術應用到戰術情報領域。 2012年7月,美國防部首席信息官簽署了《國防部雲計算戰略》,以軍隊戰略的形式推進這一進程,並持續穩步開展“雲”相關的存儲設施、計算平台和軟件服務建設。目前,美國防部已將這一概念確定為“作戰雲”,並分別從各軍兵種、工業部門和學術界抽調人員,共同著力塑造完善“作戰雲”概念方案,最終目標是要形成一個拱形數據網絡,擴展升級現有“全球信息柵格”,實現海上戰艦、作戰飛機、空間衛星的實時數據共享。

各軍兵種爭相開展“作戰雲”項目建設。美空軍是“作戰雲”概念的先行者,其認為實現“作戰雲”的關鍵是信息融合,並將“空中優勢雲”的重點放在F-15/16等四代機與F-22/35五代機的信息互通上。 2014年啟動了“多域自適應系統(MAPS)計劃”,企圖將F-15/16的Link16數據鏈、F-22的IFDL數據鏈、F-35的MADL數據鏈有機融合,實現戰場數據的實時交換。美海軍也在通過“海軍綜合火控與防空(NIFC-CA)計劃”,實現其用空中E-2D預警機或海上“宙斯盾”艦等作戰平台,為F/A-18E/F和F- 35C等艦載機及“標準”系列艦空導彈提供瞄准信息,甚至指揮未來第六代F/A-XX多用途戰鬥機發射武器的願景。雖然由於軍種利益,海軍項目並不叫“作戰雲”,但其項目強調的多平台信息跨域融合具有典型的“雲”特徵。此外,美海軍陸戰隊也啟動實施了其“遠征作戰海上戰術雲”項目建設。

“作戰雲”作戰模式檢驗驗證已經全面展開。 2014年9月23日,美空軍F-22首次率領聯合空襲機群,對敘利亞境內的“伊斯蘭國”極端組織目標實施空襲作戰。任務完成後,時任美軍空中作戰司令部司令麥克·侯斯塔奇在接受《防務頭條》採訪時,表示“一般認為隱身是五代機的標誌,其實不然,重點在於’融合’”,“’融合’使得F-22與其他平台根本不同”,“’融合’是五代機的根本特徵”,“五代機在前方偵察探測目標,然後讓四代機在防區外打擊它,你必須擁有’作戰雲’,其擁有將數據來回傳輸的能力”。這次表態,也直接證明了美空軍正在積極針對“作戰雲”作戰模式開展實戰性檢驗驗證。

(作者單位:空軍軍事理論研究所)

編輯點評

躍上“雲”端觀風雷

侯永波

當我們在網上購物時,網站會根據以往的購物記錄來判斷我們的購買偏好,推送大量的商品信息;當我們在瀏覽新聞時,軟件同樣會根據我們的閱讀習慣,“投其所好”地定向推送內容話題……這些現像都說明,我們已經來到了一個雲計算時代。

“作戰雲”之所以進入我們的選題視野,不僅僅是因為它頻繁地出現於美軍最新的作戰理論中,處處透露著對抗消解“體系破擊戰”的思維,更重要的是它代表著美軍把雲計算運用於軍事領域的最新成果,反映出美軍運用科技成果最大限度提高作戰效能的一種思路。
像很多高新技術一樣,雲計算最早出現在民用商業領域。 2006年8月,谷歌首席執行官埃里克·施密特首次提出“雲計算”概念。很快,美軍就對這種新技術表現出濃厚興趣。 2008年,美國防部與惠普公司合作建立了一個雲計算基礎設施。緊接著,美國空、海、陸等各軍種都與商業公司簽約設計相關雲計算系統。美軍對雲計算技術的熱情擁抱,有其在信息技術領域處於領先地位的大背景,但同時也反映了他們對最新前沿科技的敏銳嗅覺以及迅速的轉化運用能力。

習主席在出席十二屆全國人大五次會議解放軍代表團全體會議時強調,“要主動發現、培育、運用可服務於國防和軍隊建設的前沿尖端技術,捕捉軍事能力發展的潛在增長點”。顯然,推進云計算領域的軍民協同創新,我們是大有可為的。因為,相比美國等發達國家在雲計算領域的發展,我國並不落後,國內一些公司已經有著較為成熟的運用經驗。關鍵是如何結合我軍實際,來實現雲計算技術在軍事領域的轉化運用。

當然,我們發展運用雲計算技術,須藉鑑外軍的經驗,但絕非亦步亦趨克隆。美軍的做法只是提供了運用的一種模式。在信息革命大潮雲湧的時代,通過核心關鍵性技術突破是有可能實現“彎道超車”的。敢於擊水中流,方顯英雄本色。

Original Source:

2017年03月21日09:52  来源:解放军报

中國軍方解釋了美軍演習在網絡戰中的作用 ~ China Military Explains Role of US Military Theater Operations in Network War

中國軍方解釋了美軍演習在網絡戰中的作用 ~ China Military Explains Role of US Military Theater Operations in Network War

Who is responsible for configuring the information resources owned by the United States? Who is responsible for assigning these resources to use the priority order? What measures have we taken to ensure that the Global Information Grid (GIG), the Independent Joint Service System, and the GCCs: Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs) and Global Network Associations (GCCs), which rely on information from them, Trojans (JTF-GNO: Joint Task Force-Global NetOps) security? In recent years, the entire network combat system on the discussion of these issues has not been suspended, the focus of debate is the theater operations in the network operations should play what role.

The US military has announced the deployment of the war command for each theater, and also announced that it would reduce military support in the cross-border areas. For each theater combat command, how to configure the information infrastructure to support the war in the theater has become very important. The enemy may be infiltrated into the critical network system area responsible for military power dispatch, which is often underestimated and even treated as an accident or incidental event, but these intrusion is virtually Made a connection request to block the normal operation of the commercial website, and even led to some of the military logistics business logistics company was marked as invalid. The theater warfare command should ensure that the information conditions of its zone are not affected by external invasions. Countless viruses are destroying the Internet, the Department of Defense system began to be attacked. It is now under discussion whether the Global Network Joint Task Force should be disconnected from the military network on the Internet, but the military is concerned that with the cooperation of commercial suppliers alone, the Department of Defense can not guarantee that all logistical support operations will continue without error To go on. Each theater combat command is not sure about the state of the theater itself, and they are skeptical about the security of the global information grid itself, and they are concerned about their ability to carry out the tasks assigned to it.

(STRATCOM) and the global network of joint contingents in the network operations in the dominant ideology of the impact of the theater operations headquarters of its command and control of the zone has a more global network of operations control institutions to strengthen the United States Strategic Command Weakened. The focus on the operational information grid to the global information grid has also affected, to a certain extent, the battlefield operations command of the global information grid is how to support the theater of the specific behavior of the understanding. This article will introduce the existing command relationship, the war between the theater operations command, the direct relationship between command and combat, the old and emerging joint operational principles of a special case analysis, and finally will be the theater combat command In the network operations should play the role of the proposed recommendations.

Network combat environment

The command and control in cyber warfare is a concept that appeared ten years ago, and its connotation has been evolving. Each of the relevant departments, the theater operations headquarters and the global network of joint contingents have carried out some organizational structure and work focus on the adjustment, but ultimately did not solve their respective roles should play this issue. To really understand why the role of theater warfare in cyber operations will be a problem, it is necessary to clarify the question: where is cyber warfare, what is real cyber warfare, and every What is the organizational structure and command and control structure of the department?

The first thing to explain is, what is the global information grid? According to the definition of Ministry of Defense No. 8100.1, it includes “global interconnection, terminal-to-terminal information transmission capability and joint processing capability.” Ability to collect, process, store, transmit and manage information according to the needs of warriors and policy makers ” This covers government and leased communications information systems and services, as well as other software, security and service support required for global information grids, as well as the Clinger- The National Security System, as defined in Section 5142 of the Cohen Act. According to this definition, the global information grid contains all levels of information systems from the Department of Defense and the national security system, from the tactical level to the strategic level, as well as the interconnected communication system.

Most of the discussion on the command and control of the Global Information Grid Network Operations Center focuses on the defense capabilities of the system, but the content of the network operations is far more than that. The tasks to be accomplished by the network operations include three: departmental management, Content management and network defense, whose purpose is to provide a lack of central support across the boundaries of strategic, tactical and operational concepts, and to support the Department of Defense’s full range of combat, intelligence and mission tasks.

1. Sector management is one of the specific tasks of the global information grid, which is the technology, process and policy management of systems and networks that make up the global information grid, including public sector management, systems management, network management, satellite communications management and Electromagnetic spectrum management of these aspects.

2. Content management refers to managing the information itself in the global information grid. It ensures that information is available to users, operators, and decision makers in real time. Content management includes the search, access, transmission, storage and integration of specific information content of the global information grid.

3. Network defense is the global information grid all the information, including additional information to protect, it mainly includes a number of policies, processes, projects and operations. If necessary, the task can be requested through cross-agency cooperation to complete. It is responsible for the global information grid information security, computer network defense, computer defense response capabilities and critical infrastructure protection.

Now we have learned about the basic organizational structure of the cyber warfare, the next step in the various organizations in the network operations and how they are performing the tasks, which are mainly composed of troops, theater warfare headquarters and global network joint contingents, all of which are With the changes in the battlefield requirements to improve their organizational structure.

The change in the organizational structure of the force is mainly to meet the requirements of the global information grid for information transmission, access, control and protection. Ten years ago, the troops had some changes to regional control in order to adapt to cyber warfare, but those measures eventually developed into centralized controls, and these measures were not preserved. Now it is necessary to understand the composition of the forces in order to better understand why the network operations command and control will become so full of controversy.

GEM: GIG Enterprise Management GCM: GIG Content Management GND: GIG network defense

Army ‘s network operations command and control

The army is the least of all the reforms in the service. The Army continues to hold the previous commander, now known as the Theater Network Operations and Security Centers (TNOSC), which is directly responsible for the various theater war operations. The Army maintains an independent global network operations and security center (GNOSC: Global NetOps and Security Center), all of the battlefield network operations and security centers are its affiliates. The Global Network Operations and Security Center has technical control over the Battlefield Network Operations and Security Center, but the Battlefield Operations and Security Center is also part of the Theater Command and is also managed by the Theater Network Command. A typical example is the Army’s battlefield signal The brigade is managed by the Army Service Component Command.

The Global Network Operations and Security Center provides technical guidance to the network operations forces in each theater. The US Army Network Command and the 9th Signal Command are responsible for the technical and management of the Global Network Operations and Security Center. But in wartime, the Global Network Operations and Security Center was also commanded by the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) as Army Element.

ACERT: Army Computer Emergency Response Unit

AGNOSC: Army Global Network and Security Center

ASCC: Army Army Command

ARSTRAT: Army Strategic Command (Missile Defense and Strategy)

CIO: Chief Information Officer

GCC: Theater Combat Command (Regional Joint Command, Six of the US Army’s Top Ten Command)

INSCOM: Intelligence and Security Command (one of the Army’s reporting units)

JTF-GNO: Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations Command

NETCOM: Army Network War Command

RCERT: Regional Computer Emergency Response Team

STRATCOM: US Strategic Command

TNCC: Theater Network Operations Control Center

TNOCC: Theater Network Operations and Security Center

G6: Army Command Department of Communications

G2 Army Command Information Department

Installation Network Provider

COMMAND – Strategic level operational command

OPCON: Battle (Battle) Command

TACON: tactical control

GS: Global Strike

TECHCON: echelon

ADCON: management control

Air Force ‘s Network Operations Command Control

The Air Force has chosen a different organizational approach to move the focus from the former headquarters of the Network Operations and Security Center (MAJCOM NOSCs) to the Integrated Network Operations and Security Centers (I-NOSCs: Integrated NetOps and Security Centers). Unlike the Army’s Battlefield Network Operations and Security Center, which is managed by the Theater Operations Command, the Air Force’s Integrated Network Operations and Security Center is not affiliated with any theater war command, but only by the Air Force Operations Center (AFNOC : Air Force NetOps Center), which is similar to the Army’s Global Network Operations and Security Center. The Air Force realizes that the Theater Command must have the power to direct direct operations in its zone, and it is necessary to establish a general support relationship between the Air Force Operations Center and the Theater Operations Command, establishing a dedicated link between the two departments unit. In addition, the Air Force has given a command to the establishment of a communications control center in their respective theater areas. These control centers can be used as a shortcut between the Air Force Operations Center and their respective theater operations.

ACC: Air Warfare Center

AFCHQ: Air Force Command

AFNETOPS: Air Force Network Operations Command

ARSTRAT: Air Force Strategic Command Theater Network Operations Control Center

CIO: Chief Information Officer

I-NOSC: Integrated Network Operations and Security Center

GCC: Ibid., Regional Joint Command

JFCC-NW: Network War Joint Function Composition Command

JTF-GNO: Ibid., Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations Command

NCC: Network Control Center

STRATCOM: Ibid., Strategic Command

TNOS: Ibid., Theater Network Operations and Security Center

Naval network operations command control

The Navy and the Air Force, no longer regard the theater as a unit of command. In order to better support global operations, they assisted two existing theater naval warfare centers (RNOSCs) affiliated with the Naval Global Network Operations and Security Center (NAVGNOSC) to assist the original two naval schools in Naples and Bahrain Communication master station (NCTMS: Navy Computer and Telecommunications Master Station). In addition, since most of the Navy’s cyber operations were carried out at sea, they also established Fleet NetOps Centers (FNOCs: Fleet NetOps Centers), echoing the theater and cyber warfare centers located in the United States. The fleet network operations center is the tactical entry point for the fleet to conduct cyber operations, providing network services for audio, video and data for the fleet of the zone, and can be provided when the fleet goes from another area of ​​the fleet network operations center into another area Smooth information transitions. Most unclassified networks are contracted by the US Navy Marine Corps Internet or the US Overseas Overseas Navy Enterprise Network (ONENET: Outside of CONUS Navy Enterprise Network). In order to meet the needs of the battlefield, the Navy established the Overseas Marine Corps Intranet Global Network Operations and Security Center to provide global combat support, as well as the establishment of a war zone network combat and security center of the theater network security center on each Specific battlefield support. There is no subordinate relationship between the Theater Network Operations and Security Center and the theater operations headquarters in the theater.

Fleet NOC: Fleet Network Operations Center

GCC: Ibid., Regional Joint Command

INSCON: Ibid., Army Intelligence and Security Command

JTF-GNO: Ibid., Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations Command

NAVGNOSC: Navy Global Network Operations and Security Center

NAVSOC: Navy Satellite Operations Center

NCC MHQ: Navy Network Operations Information Operations and Space Warfare Center

NMCI GNOC: Maritime Network Global Network Operations Center

RNOSC: ibid, regional network operations center

STRATCOM: Ibid., Strategic Command

TNCC: Ibid., Theater Network Operations Control Center

Navy Global Network Operations and Security Center (NAVGNOSC) and the East and West Regional Network Operations and Security Center (East and West RNOSCs), which support the most basic organization of global naval operations. The Naval Global Network Operations and Security Center brings together information from the Theater Network Operations and Security Center, the Overseas Marine Corps Intranet and the Naval Satellite Operations Center to provide global command and control information for the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force. Unlike the Navy and the Army, they did not maintain a body belonging to the Theater Command. The support relationship between the forces established by the Joint Operations Task Force of the Global Network Operations and the Theater Warfare Command did not give the theater war command the power to command the Naval Department’s global information grid. All command requests of the Theater Warfare Command must be approved by the Navy’s Global Network Operations and Security Center.

Command and Control of Theater Combat Command

Although each theater combat command in their respective jurisdictions for network operations are not the same way, but they have a common feature, that is, have established a theater network operations control center and a subordinate to the defense information system (DISA: Defense Information Systems Agency) of the theater network operations center. (CENTCOM) will be the theater network operations control center and the Defense Information Systems Agency’s theater network operations center known as the Central Theater Network Operations Center (Central Region Theater NetOps), the Central Commander of the Central Theater, Center, and the European Command (EUCOM) has established a Theater Communication Control Center (Theater Communication Control Center). Although there are some differences in the organization, but all the theater network operations control center are basically used by the theater combat command for the area of ​​the global information grid command control (area of ​​the global information grid is also known as the theater Information Grid TIG: Theater Information Grid).

The Theater Operations Command has optimized the configuration and control of the information resources of the global information grid through the Theater Network Operations Control Center to enable them to better serve the battle, while the Theater Network Operations Control Center is also connected to the Defense Information Systems Authority, the regular forces and the global Joint Operations of the Network Operations Joint Task Force. They collaborated with the Theater Network Warfare Center, the Theater Network Operations and Security Center to monitor the status of the theater information grid, to decide on the proposed global operations of the Joint Operations Task Force, and to assess the impact of its actions. The Theater Network Warfare Control Center has the right to decide on the reduction and termination of combat operations and to adjust the priority of operations through the Theater Network Operations Center and the Theater Network Operations and Security Center. If there is no theater network operations and security center in the theater, the theater network operations control center under the Global Network Operations and Security Center tie is responsible for completing the mission required by the Theater Operations Command.

The North North Command (NORTHCOM) is a rather special sector, although it is a theater warfare command with a clear zone, but most of its troops in the zone – including cyber combat troops – are not affiliated with the commander , But belong to the United States Joint Forces Command (JFCOM: Join Forces Command). This deployment is intended to facilitate the global management of the force. The North Command, like several other theater warfare commanders, also set up a theater network operations control center, but did not establish a theater network operations and security center, which makes the North Command must rely on network operations and security centers and other departments for its Provide general support. In this case, the role of the North Command is to be responsible for the operations within its jurisdiction, but also the lack of understanding of the corresponding battlefield information grid, and no direct control of its power.

Strategic Command Network Operations Command Control

With the troops fighting command on the network combat structure to adjust the same, the Ministry of Defense departments are also undergoing reform. Over the years, the Department of Defense has not had a centralized control of the network operations. But in 1997 when the Department of Defense conducted this attempt to find some of the weaknesses of the network at that time, also came to the “combat command – troops – defense agencies,” this network mode of operation is not suitable for modern battlefield situation The That attempt has led to the formation of a Defense Force (IAA) bureau, which is part of today’s Global Network Operations Joint Task Force, which is responsible for the operation and defense of global information grids.

Global Network Operations Joint Task Force network operations command and control mechanism is also constantly evolving. Prior to the advent of the existing UCP: Unified Command Plan, the command and control of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force was under the responsibility of the Theater Operations Command, but it proved that it was not conducive to managing all the components in the network, It is also difficult to provide enough information for the global information grid information. The original version of the operational concept of cyber warfare emphasizes the control of the theater operations of the theater in the theater, which was described as follows: “The combat command has the power to command the troops assigned to its zone, Is conducive to the completion of the task, when the combat command feel appropriate, or even adjust the priority of the global information grid.All of these activities should be through the theater network operations center to achieve. “In fact, even the global Event, the initial version of the network combat concept document also provides that the global network operations Joint Task Force needs to be in the theater combat command of the theater network operations control center under the command of combat.

The follow-up version of the operational concept has been adapted to this principle. The control of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force was moved to a more global command and control structure, through which the overall role of the strategic headquarters, the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force and other forces involved in the network operations Has been strengthened. The operational concept of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force is subdivided into three environmental operational concepts: global, theater and non-global. What kind of environmental concepts apply to different events depends on the actual impact of the events and the impact of the theater. This form of command and control structure is more suitable for the current network combat diversity characteristics, for different levels of events, theater combat command can take a more flexible response measures, and even at the same time to support and supportive action. In this system, sometimes the process of dealing with the event to go through a complete command system chain, and sometimes you can skip some steps.

Global events

Global events refer to activities or events that clearly affect the preparedness of the entire global information grid, which often requires the concordation of multiple theater combatants to be resolved. Commander of the Strategic Command must have the ability to quickly identify global events and to be able to determine which theater combat operations or other agencies of the Department of Defense will be affected. Global events include fast-spreading network malicious code attacks, satellite communications attacks, and enterprise application attacks that are not limited to single-theater network events.

The Global Strategic Command is a reliable command center with command and command for the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force and the Theater Command. The Global Network Operations Joint Task Force uses its own resources to execute the instructions of the Strategic Command, which can be quickly sent to troops around the world. It is noteworthy that this order is not in the event of transmission to the theater of combat operations.

Although the notion of operational concept conferred the command of the commander of the strategic command worldwide, it did not completely deny the right of the theater war command to be commanded by the assigned joint command. While the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force performs the operational command of the Strategic Command, the Theater Operations Command can also deploy its troops to carry out the corresponding activities. Of course, in accordance with the requirements of the operational concept, the forces under the leadership of the theater operations command must be consistent with the action guidelines of the Joint Operations Task Force under the leadership of the Strategic Command. In fact, according to the historical action log of the Joint Operations Task Force of the Global Network Operations, most of the cyber operations began at the beginning of a small theater, and the Theater Command was always the first unit to deal with these incidents, and If they are handled properly, these theater-level events will not develop into global events.

Theater events

Theater events are those that occur in a battlefield area, and its foreseeable range of influence does not go beyond the theater, and the biggest difference between theater and global events is that. In the event of such incidents, the theater operations headquarters played a leading role, while the strategic headquarters only take the support role. The Global Network Operations Joint Task Force can provide support to the Theater Command by its Theater Network Operations and Security Center. If the local forces do not have a theater network operations and security center, it can also provide general support for the Theater Network Operations Control Center through the Global Network Operations and Security Center. The Command of the Theater Combat Command to the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force is subordinate to the subordinate command, that is to say there is no right to direct the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force through its Global Network Operations and Security Center to operate in its area.

Non-global event

A non-global event is an event that only affects the functional warfare headquarters and a particular defense agency. Since such institutions do not have a clear zone, these events can neither be regarded as global nor can they be seen as theater. In dealing with non-global events, the Strategic Command plays the role of auxiliary command, and the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force provides general support for the operational operational warfare headquarters involved. Most of the non-global events generally occur in the northern command zone, since many of the relevant functional departments are subordinate to the Northern Command. In the case of command and control procedures, non-global events and global events are the same.

Contradictory command and control requirements

Tactical technical requirements

Although the positioning of the various forces are not the same, but in the pursuit of efficient network operations, reasonable combat methods are their common theme. Different forces shoulder different responsibilities, they established an independent combat network, application facilities and auxiliary tools to meet their own and global information grid to maintain connectivity needs. Each unit is responsible for operating part of the global information grid, which to some extent the need for combat operations between the various departments of the centralized management, so as to get the desired combat efficiency and return on investment.

The focus of the discussion on centralized control of global information grids is the global nature of cyber warfare. The only way for the Department of Defense to achieve a network-centric commanding mechanism, to enhance the Force’s awareness of the situation and to significantly shorten the decision-making cycle, is to integrate the network and the forces horizontally, which is a centralized control mechanism The The latest “four-year defense assessment report” mentioned in the “to simplify the current ‘chimney’ system structure, to achieve a network-centric command mechanism.”

In order to make better use of scarce resources, the Department of Defense must consider when and where to allocate resources from a global perspective. The allocation of essential resources for network operations such as satellite transmission bands, standard tactical entry network sites and bandwidth must have clear mission objectives and easy to understand global significance. From the perspective of the force, the centralized command is, to some extent, a reshuffle of the existing force institutions and operations, defense networks.

The combat operations led by the theater war command will no longer be strictly limited to its zone. Ground forces are re-starting to use aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles) to routinely fly in the United States to support their operations. With the development of the PGS: Prompt Global Strike project, the commander has the power to call for conventional strike assistance from weapons systems outside the theater.

On the Navy, they pointed out that one of the essential characteristics of the maritime forces was global mobility, and the naval forces were constantly interspersed between the various theater warheads. Especially as aircraft carrier battle group such units, once deployed, it can not stay in a small battlefield. In addition, even the theater-level operations taken by the theater war command may have a global impact. The adjustment of the network defensive posture may have a huge financial burden on the Internet sector, and the combat command may not be able to understand the specific details of the adjustment behavior.

For the Department of Defense’s network system, all attacks are essentially global in nature. The enemy can not easily from the other side of the Earth to the United States to attack the physical objectives, but in the field of computer network technology, such things happen often. Once such an attack is detected, the information about it must be communicated to all relevant departments in the shortest possible time to ensure that such attacks are identified from anywhere to protect the security of the global information grid. Every time a network intrusion – even if it does not seem to fail the invasion – is likely to give the global information grid content a huge potential harm, because they invade the system behind the back door will be in the future Attack to play a role. The outbreak of the virus is an undisputed global event, and if we do not realize this, we will suffer more losses.

The Navy emphasizes that the impact of no events will be limited to a theater area, and that all efforts to combat cyber operations must be global. Their defense is that there is no theater boundaries, the Department of Defense every battlefield combat headquarters are facing the same potential threat, in order to obtain information on the advantages of the Department of Defense must make full use of its large coverage of the network resources , Quickly share all useful information on a global basis.

In addition, the Air Force and the Navy have pointed out that their cyber warfare forces are not deployed by the Theater Warfare Command. The Air Force and the Navy have their own cyber warfare organizations (such as the Theater Network Operations and Security Center) in each zone of the Theater Command, and the Air Force and Navy’s cyber warfare forces are usually defender in the theater. Finally, the Air Force and the Navy believe that the Strategic Command is responsible for the Global Information Grid through the Theater Operations Command, based on the description of the official documents available for reference.

Theater war command

There are two issues that need to be concerned about the command and control of cyber warfare against the Theater Command. One is the need for timely control of the battlefield information grid, the second is the need to turn the network into a weapon system, so that commanders can be the same as the conventional weapon system to use the same network resources, the use of the full range of network advantages to conduct a comprehensive battle.

Those forces that have been assigned specific responsibilities have already deployed their own unique solutions, each of which is involved in a network operation or each institution believes that it already has the most effective allocation of scarce resources. But the global information grid is not exclusive to a particular department, but a joint structure. “Chimney” type system and the existing deployment of the troops is actually to reduce the efficiency of the battlefield information grid efficiency. For example, the Army developed a secure IP telephony solution before other departments in the Department of Defense to communicate with the secret voice. For security reasons, other departments usually do not use this program, but their own development of a set of the same function of the solution. So there will be two sets of independent, confidential IP voice schemes in the zone of the Combat Command, which can not be connected to each other. The theater warfare command had to be screened, leaving only a set of programs to ensure that all departments in their zones could cooperate with each other. But the solution is eliminated by the party can no longer with the theater outside the brother forces for confidential contact.

Some of the resources in the combat command zone can serve multiple forces and the public sector. However, there are many examples of the use of duplication of work for the establishment of their own can not be linked to each other independent systems, such as satellite terminals and some technical control equipment. Sometimes, to send a message, you need to send the signal back to the United States, and then sent from the local distance from the initial sender only two miles of the recipient there. All kinds of fibers are arranged one by one on the same route, but the data between them can not be exchanged directly because they belong to different forces or public departments. The theater operations command must take measures to address the interconnection between the troops or the civil service in the zone.

To solve this problem, you can use centralized control approach. The centralized command of the cyber warfare forces requires the theater war command to make some adjustments to its own organization, but at the same time it does not affect its power to direct action when there is a need for combat. Relevant forces must accept orders for multiple combat orders and effectively optimize and feedback battlefield information. At present, the troops sent to the front are becoming more and more independent, and through the help of the global information grid they can cross the border of the theater combat command back and forth, and the theater warfare command has been compromised by the support and confrontation of the cyber warfare , After the implementation of centralized command, the troops can not or do not want to respond to the requirements of the theater combat command.

The Pacific Command (PACOM: Pacific Command) first adopted a “joint attempt” approach in humanitarian aid operations when it participated in the Indonesian tsunami relief work in 2004. The Pacific Command issued instructions to the assigned troops to carry out special network defenses under the framework of the entire action plan. Many naval forces and Marine Corps units have established relatively direct network defenses under the centralized command of the Navy’s Global Network Operations Center, which goes beyond the mandate of the Pacific Command to the Navy and Marine Corps, which Posing a potential risk factor for the global operations of the Pacific Command.

The Combat Command is concerned that the idea of ​​centralizing control of global information grids will always reduce their grip on information and control of the global information grid. Under the existing command system, a unit will carry out training or perform other tasks under the command of its troops, and participate in the battle under the command of the theater combat command, and the rules of command and control are very clear. The command and control of the forces in the field of information is as important as their command and control in the air, land, sea and space fields. For the C3S system (control, communications and computer systems), under its command to combat and responsible for the protection of its forces are often in a double or even triple the report chain, the results can not tell who is responsible for the final battle. In a global or non-global event, the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force often conducts direct operations around the theater operations headquarters. Although the operational concept of joint cyber warfare specifically emphasizes the need for coordinated operations with the theater combat command, this requirement has become almost in the context of modern combat rapid changes. Information Security Weakness Alert System, Computer Task Sequence, and Information Condition Adjustment System Problems outside the jurisdiction of the Combat Command are typical examples of this requirement failure. These events directly affect the command of the Theater Command in the battlefield, when the troops want to directly use these mechanisms from the management level to strengthen their own control, they can not determine when and how in the implementation of these Operation, and do not know what impact this will have on the command of the theater combat command, because under current conditions, only the theater combat command has the ability to carry out these operations. When a threat event requires the Air Force’s Space Command to seek the cooperation of the Joint Operations Task Force of the Global Network Operations with Air Force forces, it would bring to the command of the North Command if it did not notify or obtain cooperation with the Northern Command Big trouble.

In the Central Command, due to the lack of adequate control of the network combat forces, resulting in the commander sometimes can not determine whether the network resources are available. The Navy is responsible for operating a large number of battlefield information grids. Navy network combat forces in the operational area are not responsible for the Central Command of the Navy, who only need to report to the Theater Network Operations and Security Center. The central theater’s central theater theater operations center, whose duty is to maintain and direct all the combat operations of the theater operations, but it is not in the naval network combat force report chain, so it is often impossible to get all the battlefield information grid Of the state of affairs, there are already alternatives to deal with this problem, but this can not be said to be a formal solution.

For the North Command, because of the lack of cyber warfare control, they encountered great trouble in the rescue work of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In that operation, the troops’ equipment was transported to the joint warfare zone without permission. Which makes the North Command can not grasp and guide the transfer of materials, but can not coordinate the actions of various forces, which is a multi-directional management and operational issues.

As the various forces advocate the implementation of a centralized command framework centered on the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the theater commanders are reluctant to see such changes, Some of them are responsible for the strategic headquarters, with the global information grid operating rights and defense rights mechanism. The presence of the Strategic Command has been instrumental in maintaining the command of the theater combat command in combat operations in theater and global events and in enhancing communication between the theater combat command and the Joint Staff.

Combat headquarters and troops want to focus on the network operations from the level of joint operations, but there are several issues that need to be discussed:

Who is responsible for the first leadership?

2. Network operations to focus on what the specific direction of the command to be reflected, the global level, the theater level or what other level?

3. What is the change brought about by this adjustment only when a part of the theater combat command sends a request to the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force or is the theater commander’s complete command and priority in the theater?

Finally, the Theater Command is the body that is ultimately responsible for the President’s mission to complete the military mission in the area, and the troops dispatched to the theater combat command need to complete their respective tasks under their jurisdiction. It is unquestionable that they will still be under the command of the strategic command when the troops advocate the implementation of a global centralized command. But the current global information grid is a key part of the command and control capability of the theater combat command and the commander’s ability to guide the troops. Without a global information grid, the plane can not fly, the ground forces can not move, the ships can not sail, even the satellite can not provide the signal. Commanders need to get the status of the global information grid and control, just as they need to master the position and status of the troops as important. They must grasp the scope, ability and status of the battlefield information grid, and must know how the situation outside the theater will affect the battlefield information grid in the area where the troops are located and must be able to command and optimize the troops to support operations. If we really believe that the speculation of the centralized command will have a better effect, it can not be ignored for the theater war command to retain the appropriate command and control.

Also, as long as the structure of the Theater Command is still preserved, all military missions, including those directed by the Functional Command Command, will inevitably occur in the theater of the Theater Command, as all networks Combat missions must be carried out by an entity unit. At the same time, centralized command is necessary to achieve a network-centric command model and to more effectively defend against attacks. The concept of this centralized command and the command of the theater war command to master and optimize the battlefield information grid is not mutually exclusive.

The way forward

To develop a viable network combat command and control framework, it is necessary to avoid extremes, taking into account the needs of theater warfare headquarters and the need to establish centralized control of global information grids. In the process of the development of the operational concept of joint network operations and the transformation process of network combat forces, the principle of organization needs to play the role of adjusting the interests of all parties. In order to achieve this goal, the Department of Defense should do the following:

1. Create a simple, clear network combat command chain, to ensure that the strategic headquarters of all network operations can be directed. This can solve the problem just mentioned “who is responsible for the first leadership”. Only when the event occurred in a rapidly changing environment, the theater command and control agencies began to play a role. Simple command chain can ensure that troops involved in network operations know who should listen to who should report to whom, in this command chain, must include the theater combat command.

2. The command of the theater war command in its zone can be given:

– to amend the Joint Command plan to clarify the responsibilities of the Theater Operations Command to operate the network in its zone.

– Revise the existing global information grid network operational concept, detailing that those outside the theater network operations and security centers can obtain direct assistance from the World Network Operations and Security Center of the Theater Operations Command.

– All orders for the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force shall be enforced through the Theater Operations Command.

These adjustments ensure that all units in the theater are acting under a single command chain, which is responsible for the strategic headquarters through the Theater Operations Command. This can also solve the North Command should be responsible for the area but did not command the power of the network fighting the embarrassing situation.

3. In each theater combat command, a joint network operations center under the jurisdiction of the Central Command shall be established to integrate the Theater Network Operations Control Center of the Theater Command Command and the Theater Network Operations Center of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force. As a result, each theater war command will have a joint operations command in the field of computer space, just as in the battlefield of land, sea and air. Any troops outside the Theater Network Operations and Security Center can obtain direct assistance from the Global Network Operations and Security Center of the Joint Network Operations Center.

4. To consolidate the status of the global information grid, the highest control to the strategic headquarters. The development of centralized command is now focused on the command of the forces involved in the network operations, which runs counter to the network-centric command concept. The force-centric “chimney” command system is not conducive to the transmission and processing of information, let us from the “all users to provide the latest and most accurate information” goal farther and farther. In the previous “Goldwater Nichols Defense Ministry Reconstruction Law” report has made it clear that the organization and management and command and control should be controlled by a joint agency.

Concluding remarks

The current centralized command of network operations is an urgent need. Optimizing the network operational command mechanism can help the Department of Defense to improve efficiency, save costs and better allocate scarce resources. More importantly, this allows network combat troops to provide information more quickly and accurately to commanders, which is important in large-scale network operations. The process of centralized command can not affect the efficiency of network combat command and control. This depends on whether the global information grid can provide enough information for all participating units and whether the commander makes full use of the theater information grid to help command operations.

“We have to change the network combat problem discussion and thinking mode, we are in the network” combat “rather than the network” management “, all participating units must ensure that they are ready to war every time to ensure that the network system A decisive weapon system. ” Network operations are a key part of our country’s ability to win war, it can help us provide command and control, shorten the decision-making cycle and adjust the resources of the theater. The Strategic Command has taken a big step in strengthening the concept of cyber warfare, and these efforts need to be continued. The theater warfare command must be an important part of the control and protection of the global information grid to ensure that we can continue to win the network.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

是誰在負責配置美國所擁有的信息資源?誰在負責分配這些資源利用時的優先級順序?我們採取了哪些措施來保證全球信息柵格(GIG:Global Information Grid)、獨立聯合服務系統以及依靠從它們身上獲取信息來開展工作的戰區作戰司令部(GCCs:Geographic Combatant Commanders)和全球網絡聯合特遣部隊(JTF-GNO:Joint Task Force-Global NetOps)的安全?最近幾年以來,整個網絡作戰系統對這些問題的討論一直沒有停息過,人們爭論的焦點就是戰區作戰司令部在網絡作戰中應該扮演什麼樣的角色。

美國軍方公佈了對每個戰區作戰司令部的部署,同時還宣布將會減少跨戰區的軍事支持行動。對每個戰區作戰司令部來說,如何配置支持本戰區作戰的信息基礎設施就變得非常重要了。敵人有可能會滲透進負責軍事力量調度的關鍵網絡系統區域進行破壞,這些入侵的危害常常被低估,甚至被當作意外事件或者偶發事件輕描淡寫地處理掉,但是這些入侵行為實際上完全有可能濫發連接請求來阻塞商業網站的正常運行,甚至導致一些承擔軍隊後勤業務的物流公司被標為無效狀態。戰區作戰司令部應該保證其防區的信息條件不受外部入侵的影響。不計其數的病毒正在破壞著互聯網,國防部的系統也開始遭到攻擊。現在有人在討論是否應該讓全球網絡聯合特遣隊斷開互聯網上的軍事入網點,但軍方又擔心僅靠和商業供應商的合作,國防部不能保證所有的後勤支持行動都能繼續無差錯地進行下去。每個戰區作戰司令部對各自的戰區網絡狀態都不太確定,他們對全球信息柵格本身的安全持有懷疑態度,他們擔心其是否有能力執行分配給它的任務。

受到建立一個更全球化的網絡作戰控制機構、加強美國戰略司令部(STRATCOM)和全球網絡聯合特遣隊在網絡作戰中的主導地位思想的影響,戰區作戰司令部對其防區的指揮控制權有所削弱。將作戰信息集中到全球信息柵格的做法也在一定程度上影響了戰區作戰司令部對全球信息柵格是如何支持該戰區的作戰的具體行為的了解。本文將會介紹現有的指揮關係、戰區作戰司令部的職責、指揮和作戰之間的線性關係、舊有的和新興的聯合作戰原則一級特殊戰例分析,最後還將會對戰區作戰司令部在網絡作戰中所應扮演的角色提出建議。

網絡作戰的環境

網絡作戰中的指揮控制是一個在十年以前就出現了的概念,之後它的內涵一直處在演變之中。每個相關部門、戰區作戰司令部和全球網絡聯合特遣隊都為此進行過一些組織結構和工作重心上的調整,但是最終都沒有解決好各自應該扮演的角色這個問題。要想真正明白為什麼戰區作戰司令部在網絡作戰中的角色會成為一個難題,就必須先弄清楚這幾個問題:網絡作戰是在哪兒發生的、什麼是真正的網絡作戰、網絡作戰中的每個部門的組織結構和指揮控制結構是怎樣的。

首先需要解釋的是,什麼是全球信息柵格?按照國防部第8100.1號文件的定義,它包括“全球互聯的、終端到終端的信息傳輸能力和聯合處理能力。按照戰士、決策者的需要來進行信息採集、處理、儲存、傳播和管理的能力”。這就涵蓋了政府的和租用的通信信息系統及服務,以及全球信息柵格所需的其他軟件、安全和服務支持,還包括1996年3月頒布的《克林格-科恩法》(Clinger- Cohen Act)第5142節所定義的國家安全系統(National Security System)。按照這個定義,全球信息柵格包含了國防部和國家安全系統的所有級別的信息系統,從戰術層次到戰略層次,以及互聯通信系統。

大多數關於全球信息柵格網絡作戰中心的指揮控制的討論都在著重強調該系統的防禦能力,但是網絡作戰包含的內容其實遠不止這點,網絡作戰要完成的任務包括三項:部門管理、內容管理和網絡防禦,其工作目的是提供跨越戰略、戰術和作戰概念邊界的無中心式支持,為國防部的全方位的戰鬥、情報和考察任務提供支持。

1.部門管理是全球信息柵格的具體任務之一,它是對構成全球信息柵格的系統和網絡的技術、過程和政策管理,包括公務部門管理、系統管理、網絡管理、衛星通信管理和電磁光譜管理這幾個方面。

2.內容管理指的是管理全球信息柵格里的信息本身。它用即時的方式保證信息對使用者、操作者和決策者都是可用的。內容管理包括對全球信息柵格的具體信息內容的查找、訪問、傳輸、儲存和一體化。

3.網絡防禦就是對全球信息柵格所有的信息包括附加信息進行保護,它主要包括一些政策、過程、項目和操作。如果有必要的話,該任務可以請求通過跨機構合作來完成。它負責的是全球信息柵格的信息安全、計算機網絡防禦、計算機防衛反應能力和關鍵性基礎設施保護。

現在已經了解了網絡作戰的基本組織結構,下一步介紹網絡作戰中的各個組織和他們是如何執行任務的,需要介紹的主要是部隊、戰區作戰司令部和全球網絡聯合特遣隊,它們都在隨著戰場要求的變化而改進著各自的組織結構。

部隊在組織結構上的改變主要是為了滿足全球信息柵格對信息傳輸、訪問、控制和保護能力的要求。十年之前,部隊為了適應網絡作戰曾針對區域控制進行過一些變革,但那些措施最終發展成了集中化的控制,這些措施也沒有保留下來。現在我們有必要了解一下部隊的組織構成,以便更好地理解為什麼網絡作戰的指揮控制會變得如此充滿爭議。
GEM:GIG企業管理 GCM:GIG內容管理 GND:GIG網絡防禦
陸軍的網絡作戰指揮控制

陸軍是所有軍種中改革措施最少的。陸軍繼續保持著以前的指揮機構,現在叫做戰場網絡作戰與安全中心(TNOSC:Theater NetOps and Security Centers),該組織直接對各個戰區作戰司令部負責。陸軍維持著一個獨立的全球網絡作戰與安全中心(GNOSC:Global NetOps and Security Center),所有的戰場網絡作戰與安全中心都是其下屬機構。全球網絡作戰與安全中心對戰場網絡作戰與安全中心進行技術控制,但是戰場網絡作戰與安全中心同時又隸屬於戰區作戰司令部,也受到戰區網絡司令部的管理,典型的例子就是陸軍的戰場信號旅受陸軍服務組件指揮部的管理。

全球網絡作戰與安全中心對各個戰區的網絡作戰部隊提供技術指導。美國陸軍網絡司令部暨第9信號司令部對全球網絡作戰與安全中心的技術和管理負責。但是在戰時,全球網絡作戰與安全中心又作為陸軍的元素受戰略司令部(STRATCOM)的指揮。
ACERT:陸軍計算機應急響應分隊
AGNOSC:陸軍全球網絡和安全中心

ASCC:陸軍軍種組成司令部

ARSTRAT:陸軍戰略司令部(導彈防禦與戰略)

CIO:首席信息官

GCC:戰區作戰司令部(地區性聯合司令部,美軍十大司令部中的六個)

INSCOM:情報和安全司令部(陸軍直屬報告單位之一)

JTF-GNO:聯合特遣部隊-全球網絡作戰司令部

NETCOM:陸軍網絡戰爭司令部

RCERT:地區性計算機應急響應分隊

STRATCOM:美軍戰略司令部

TNCC:戰區網絡作戰控制中心

TNOCC:戰區網絡作戰和安全中心

G6:陸軍司令部通信部門

G2陸軍司令部情報部門

Installation Network Provider網絡施設提供商

COMMAND—戰略層面作戰指揮

OPCON:作戰(戰役)指揮

TACON:戰術控制

GS:全球打擊

TECHCON:梯隊

ADCON:管理控制

空軍的網絡作戰指揮控制

空軍選擇了一條不同的組織途徑,把重點從以前的一級司令部網絡作戰和安全中心(MAJCOM NOSCs)轉移到了一體化網絡作戰和安全中心(I-NOSCs:Integrated NetOps and Security Centers)。與陸軍的戰場網絡作戰與安全中心受戰區作戰司令部的管理不同的是,空軍的一體化網絡作戰和安全中心並不隸屬於任何一個戰區作戰司令部,而是只受空軍網絡作戰中心(AFNOC :Air Force NetOps Center)的管理,該中心與陸軍的全球網絡作戰和安全中心性質類似。空軍意識到了戰區作戰司令部必須擁有在其防區直接指揮網絡作戰行動的權力,有必要在空軍網絡作戰中心和戰區作戰司令部之間建立起一般支持的關係,建立兩個部門之間的專用聯絡單元。另外空軍方面還賦予了一級司令部在各自的戰區建立通信控制中心的自主權,這些控制中心可以當作空軍網絡作戰中心與各自戰區作戰司令部相互聯繫的快捷通道。
ACC:空戰中心
AFCHQ:空軍組成司令部

AFNETOPS:空軍網絡作戰司令部

ARSTRAT:空軍戰略司令部戰區網絡作戰控制中心

CIO:首席信息官

I-NOSC:集成網絡作戰和安全中心

GCC:同上,地區性聯合司令部

JFCC-NW:網絡戰聯合職能組成司令部

JTF-GNO:同上,聯合特遣部隊-全球網絡作戰司令部

NCC:網絡控制中心

STRATCOM:同上,戰略司令部

TNOS:同上,戰區網絡作戰與安全中心

海軍的網絡作戰指揮控制

海軍和空軍一樣,不再把戰區當作指揮的單位。為了更好地支持全球作戰,他們用隸屬於海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心(NAVGNOSC)的兩個戰區網絡戰安全中心(RNOSCs)來協助原有的位於那不勒斯和巴林島的兩個戰區海軍計算機與通信主站(NCTMS:Navy Computer and Telecommunications Master Station)。另外,由於海軍的大多數網絡作戰是在海上進行,所以他們還建立了艦隊網絡作戰中心(FNOCs:Fleet NetOps Centers),與位於美國本土的戰區網絡戰安全中心互為呼應。艦隊網絡作戰中心是艦隊進行網絡作戰的戰術切入點,可以為本防區的艦隊提供音頻、視頻和數據等網絡服務,並且可以在艦隊從一個艦隊網絡作戰中心的轄區駛入另一個轄區的時候提供平滑的信息過渡。多數未分類的網絡都是由美國本土的海軍陸戰隊內聯網(NMCI:Navy Marine Corps Internet)或者美國海外的海外海軍企業網絡(ONENET:Outside of CONUS Navy Enterprise Network)負責承包運營的。為了適應戰場的需求,海軍建立了海外海軍陸戰隊內聯網全球網絡作戰與安全中心來提供全球性的作戰支持,同時也建立了隸屬於戰區網絡作戰與安全中心的戰區網絡戰安全中心對各個具體戰場提供支持。戰區網絡作戰與安全中心與所在戰區的戰區作戰司令部並沒有從屬關係。
Fleet NOC:艦隊網絡作戰中心
GCC:同上,地區性聯合司令部

INSCON:同上,陸軍情報和安全司令部

JTF-GNO:同上,聯合特遣部隊-全球網絡作戰司令部

NAVGNOSC:海軍全球網絡作戰和安全中心

NAVSOC:海軍衛星作戰中心

NCC MHQ:海軍網絡作戰信息作戰和太空戰中心

NMCI GNOC:海軍陸戰隊網全球網絡作戰中心

RNOSC:同上,地區性網絡作戰中心

STRATCOM:同上,戰略司令部

TNCC:同上,戰區網絡作戰控制中心

支持全球海軍作戰的最基本的組織的海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心(NAVGNOSC)和東西部戰區網絡作戰與安全中心(East and West RNOSCs)。海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心匯集了來自戰區網絡作戰與安全中心、海外海軍陸戰隊內聯網和海軍衛星作戰中心的信息,為全球網絡行動聯合特遣部隊提供全球性的指揮控制信息。海軍和陸軍不同的是,他們沒有維持一個隸屬於戰區作戰司令部的機構。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊建立的部隊與戰區作戰司令部之間的支持關係並沒有賦予戰區作戰司令部在海軍部負責的全球信息柵格範圍內進行指揮的權力。戰區作戰司令部的所有指揮請求都必須先經過海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心的批准。

戰區作戰司令部的網絡作戰指揮控制

儘管每個戰區作戰司令部在各自的轄區內針對網絡作戰的組織方式都不盡相同,但是他們卻有一個共同的特點,那就是都建立了一個戰區網絡作戰控制中心和一個隸屬於國防信息系統局(DISA:Defense Information Systems Agency)的戰區網絡作戰中心。各個戰區網絡作戰控制中心的組織結構並不完全相同,美國中央司令部(CENTCOM)將戰區網絡作戰控制中心和國防信息系統局的戰區網絡作戰中心合稱為中央戰區網絡作戰中心(Central Region Theater NetOps Center),而歐洲司令部(EUCOM)則建立了一個戰區通信控制中心(Theater Communication Control Center)。雖然在組織上有些差異,但是所有的戰區網絡作戰控制中心基本上都是被戰區作戰司令部用來對轄區內的全球信息柵格進行指揮控制(轄區內的全球信息柵格也被稱為戰區信息柵格TIG:Theater Information Grid)。

戰區作戰司令部通過戰區網絡作戰控制中心來優化配置和控制全球信息柵格的信息資源,以使它們更好地為戰鬥服務,同時戰區網絡作戰控制中心也是連接國防信息系統局、常規部隊和全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的戰區接口。他們與戰區網絡戰中心、戰區網絡作戰和安全中心合作來監控戰區信息柵格的狀態,對被提議的全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊相關行動作出決定,並評估其行動的影響。戰區網絡戰控制中心對作戰行動力度的減小和終止有決定權,並且通過戰區網絡作戰中心和戰區網絡作戰與安全中心來調整作戰的優先級。如果該戰區沒有戰區網絡作戰與安全中心,那麼就由全球網絡作戰與安全中心領帶下的戰區網絡作戰控制中心來負責完成戰區作戰司令部所要求的任務。

美國的北方司令部(NORTHCOM)是一個比較特別的部門,雖然它是一個有著明確防區的戰區作戰司令部,但是其防區內的大部分部隊——包括網絡作戰部隊——都不隸屬於該司令部,而是屬於美國聯合部隊司令部(JFCOM:Join Forces Command)。這樣的部署是為了便於部隊的全球性管理。北方司令部和其他幾個戰區作戰司令部一樣,也設立了戰區網絡作戰控制中心,但是卻沒有建立戰區網絡作戰與安全中心,這就使得北方司令部必須依靠網絡作戰與安全中心等部門為其提供一般支持。在這種情況下,北方司令部所扮演的角色就是需要負責其轄區內的作戰行動,但是又對相應的戰場信息柵格缺乏了解,更沒有直接控制它的權力。

戰略司令部網絡作戰指揮控制

與部隊戰鬥司令部對網絡作戰結構進行調整一樣,國防部的相關部門也在進行著改革。多年以來,國防部一直沒有一個集中控制的網絡作戰部。但是在1997年的時候國防部進行過這方面的嘗試,發現了一些當時網絡的弱點,也得出了“作戰司令部-部隊-國防機構”這種網絡作戰的模式已經不適合現代的戰場情況。那次嘗試促成了國防信息系統局最終組建了一支實體部隊,也就是今天的全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊來負責全球信息柵格的操作和防禦。

全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的網絡作戰指揮控制機制同樣也在不斷發展。在現有的聯合司令部計劃(UCP:Unified Command Plan)出現之前,全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的指揮控制都是由戰區作戰司令部負責,但是事實證明這不利於管理網絡中的所有組件,也難以為全球信息柵格提供足夠的事態感知信息。最初版本的網絡作戰的作戰概念比較強調戰區作戰司令部對其防區的網絡作戰的控制,當時對處理戰區問題的描述是這樣的:“作戰司令部有權指揮被指派到其防區的部隊,只要是利於任務的完成,在作戰司令部覺得合適的時候,甚至可以調整全球信息柵格的優先級。所有的這些活動,都應該通過戰區網絡作戰中心來實現。”事實上,即使是全球性的事件,最初版本的網絡作戰概念文件也規定全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊需要在戰區作戰司令部的戰區網絡作戰控制中心指揮下進行作戰。
作戰概念的後續版本對這項原則進行了調整。對全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的控制被移到了一個更加全球化的指揮控制架構中,通過這樣的調整,戰略司令部、全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊和其他參與網絡作戰的部隊的整體角色都得到了加強。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的作戰概念被細分成了三個環境作戰概念:全球性的、戰區性的和非全局性的。不同的事件適用何種環境概念取決於事件造成的實際影響和戰區影響。這種形式的指揮控制結構更加適用於目前網絡作戰多樣性特性,針對不同級別的事件,戰區作戰司令部可以採取更加靈活的應對措施,甚至可以同時展開支持性的和輔助性的行動。在這種制度下,有時候處理事件的過程要經過完整的指揮系統鏈,有時候可以跳過一些步驟。

全球性事件

全球性事件是指那些顯而易見會影響整個全球信息柵格的備戰度的活動或事件,這類事件通常需要多個戰區作戰司令部的協同處理才能得到解決。戰略司令部的指揮官必須要具備快速鑑別全球性事件的能力,並要能具體判斷出有哪些戰區作戰司令部或者國防部的其他機構會受到影響。全球性事件包括快速傳播的網絡惡意代碼攻擊、衛星通信攻擊、企業應用攻擊等不僅僅局限於單個戰區的網絡事件。

全球戰略司令部是一個可靠的指揮中心,它對全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊和戰區作戰司令部都有命令和指揮權。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊利用自己的資源來執行戰略司令部的指示,作戰命令可以很快地發送到在全球各地的部隊中。值得注意的是,這種命令在傳遞時不經過事件發生地的戰區作戰司令部。

雖然作戰概念的原則賦予了戰略司令部指揮官全球範圍內的指揮權,但是這也並沒有完全否定戰區作戰司令部可以通過分配的聯合司令部計劃來進行指揮的權利。在全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊執行戰略司令部的作戰命令的同時,戰區作戰司令部也可以調遣其麾下的部隊進行相應的活動。當然,按照作戰概念的要求,戰區作戰司令部領導下的部隊的行動必須與戰略司令部領導下的全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的行動方針保持一致。事實上,據全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的歷史行動日誌記載,大多數的網絡作戰一開始都是在小範圍戰區開始出現的,戰區作戰司令部總是著手處理這些事件的第一單位,而且如果處理得適當的話,這些戰區級別的事件就不會發展成全球性事件。

戰區性事件

戰區性事件是指那些發生在某個戰場區域,其可預見的影響範圍不會超出該戰區的事件,戰區性事件與全球性事件的最大區別也就在於此。在處理這類事件的時候,戰區作戰司令部起著主導作用,而戰略司令部只承擔輔助的支持作用。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊可以通過其戰區網絡作戰與安全中心對戰區作戰司令部提供支援。如果當地的部隊沒有戰區網絡作戰與安全中心,那也可以通過全球網絡作戰與安全中心為戰區網絡作戰控制中心提供一般支持。戰區作戰司令部對全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的指揮屬於次級指揮,也就是說沒有權利通過全球網絡作戰與安全中心來直接調動全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊到其所轄區域進行作戰。

非全局性事件

非全局性事件是指只對職能作戰司令部和特定的國防機構造成影響的事件。由於這類機構沒有明確的防區,所以這些事件既不能被看成全球性的也不能被看成戰區性的。在處理非全局性事件時,戰略司令部扮演輔助指揮的角色,全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊對所涉及到的職能作戰司令部提供一般支持。大多數的非全局性事件一般都發生在北方司令部的防區,因為很多相關的職能部門都隸屬於北方司令部。在指揮控制的程序方面,非全局性事件和全球性事件是相同的。

相互矛盾的指揮控制要求

戰術技術的要求

儘管各個部隊的定位不盡相同,但是在網絡作戰中追求高效、合理的作戰方法是他們共同的主題。不同的部隊肩負著不同的職責,他們建立了獨立的作戰網絡、應用設施和輔助工具來滿足自身與全球信息柵格保持聯通的需求。每支部隊都要負責操作一部分全球信息柵格,這在一定程度上需要各部隊間作戰鏈的集中化管理,這樣才能獲得所期待的作戰效率和投入回報率。

關於對全球信息柵格進行集中化控制討論的焦點是網絡作戰的全球性特質。國防部想要實現以網絡為中心的指揮機制、增強部隊的事態感知能力和顯著縮短決策週期的目標的話,唯一的方法就是將網絡和部隊進行橫向的融合,這是一種集中化的控制機制。最新的一份《四年防務評估報告》裡就提到過“要簡化目前的‘煙囪式’系統結構,實現以網絡為中心的指揮機制”。

為了更好地利用緊缺資源,國防部必須從全球性的角度來考慮何時何地調撥何種資源。對衛星傳輸波段、標準戰術入口網絡站點和帶寬等網絡作戰必需資源的分配必須要有明確的任務目標和易於理解的全球性意義。從部隊的角度來看,集中化指揮在某種程度上是對現有部隊機構和作戰、防禦網絡的一次重新洗牌。

由戰區作戰司令部領導的作戰行動將不再嚴格地限於其防區內。地面部隊重新開始利用飛機(包括無人機)例行地在美國本土飛行來支持他們的作戰。隨著快速全球打擊(PGS:Prompt Global Strike)項目的發展,指揮官已經有權力呼叫從戰區以外的武器系統發出常規打擊援助。

在海軍方面,他們指出海上部隊的一個本質性特點就是全球流動性,海軍部隊作戰時會不斷地在各個戰區作戰司令部之間穿插。尤其是像航母戰鬥群這樣的單位,一旦被部署出發,就不可能一直呆在一塊小範圍的戰場。另外,即使是戰區作戰司令部所採取的戰區級別的行動,也有可能產生全球性的影響。網絡防禦姿態的調整可能對互聯網部門帶來巨大的經濟負擔,而且作戰司令部還有可能無法了解到調整行為的具體細節結果。

對國防部的網絡系統來說,所有的攻擊本質上同樣都是全球性的。敵人不可能輕易地從地球的另一端對美國本土的實體目標進行攻擊,但是在計算機網絡科技領域,這樣的事情經常發生。一旦檢測到這種攻擊,關於它的信息必須要在最短的時間內傳遍全球所有的相關部門,以保證從任何地方都能識別出這樣的攻擊方式,從而保護全球信息柵格的安全。每一次網絡入侵——哪怕是看起來無關緊要的失敗的入侵——都有可能給全球信息柵格的內容帶來巨大的潛在危害,因為它們入侵時在系統中留下的後門會在以後的攻擊中發揮作用。病毒的爆發是毫無爭議的全球性事件,如果認識不到這一點的話,我們將會受到更大的損失。

海軍強調沒有任何事件的影響會僅限於某個戰區範圍,所有關於網絡作戰的努力都必須是全球性的。他們的理由是網絡作戰是沒有戰區界限的,國防部的每個戰區作戰司令部所面臨的潛在威脅都是相同的,為了獲得信息上的優勢,國防部必須要充分利用其大覆蓋面的網絡資源,快速地在全球範圍內分享所有的有用信息。

此外,空軍和海軍方面指出,他們的網絡作戰部隊都不是由戰區作戰司令部來負責部署的。在每個戰區作戰司令部的防區內,空軍和海軍都有自己的網絡作戰組織(例如戰區網絡作戰與安全中心),而且空軍和海軍的網絡作戰部隊在戰區內通常是扮演維護者的角色。最後一點,空軍和海軍都認為,根據可供參考的官方文件的描述,戰略司令部通過戰區作戰司令部對全球信息柵格負責。

戰區作戰司令部的要求

對戰區作戰司令部來說,在網絡作戰的指揮控制方面有兩個需要關心的問題。一是需要對戰場信息柵格進行及時的控制,二是需要把網絡變成一個武器系統,讓指揮官們可以像對常規的武器系統一樣共同利用網絡資源,利用網絡全方位的優勢來進行全面的戰鬥。

那些被分配了特定職責的部隊,已經部署好了各自唯一的解決方案,參與到網絡作戰中的每支部隊或者每個機構都相信自己已經擁有了最有效分配緊缺資源的辦法。但是全球信息柵格並不是專屬於某一個部門的,而是一個聯合結構。 “煙囪”式系統和現有的部隊部署方式實際上是降低了戰場信息柵格的利用效率。舉個例子來說,陸軍在國防部的其他部門之前研發出了一套安全的IP電話解決方案,可以進行保密語音的聯絡。出於安全考慮,其他部門通常不會再採用這套方案,而是自己再開發一套功能相同的解決方案。這樣在作戰司令部的防區內就有了兩套獨立的保密IP語音方案,它們相互之間不能進行聯通。戰區作戰司令部只得進行篩選,只保留一套方案,以保證在其防區內所有部門可以進行彼此協作。但是解決方案被淘汰的一方就不能再與該戰區以外的兄弟部隊進行保密聯絡了。

作戰司令部防區內的有些資源可以為多個部隊和公務部門服務。但是也有很多例子是使用者進行重複勞動為各自建立了不能相互聯絡的獨立系統,比如衛星終端和一些技術控制設備。有些時候,要傳遞一個信息的話,需要先把信號發回美國本土,然後再從本土發到距離初始發送者只有兩英里的接收者那裡。各種各樣的光纖一條挨一條地按照相同的路線排列著,但是它們之間的數據卻不能進行直接交換,因為它們分屬於不同的部隊或者公務部門。戰區作戰司令部必須採取措施來解決防區內的部隊或者公務部門之間的互聯性問題。

要解決這個問題,可以採用集中化控制的辦法。對網絡作戰部隊的集中化指揮需要戰區作戰司令部對自身的組織機構進行一定的調整,但是同時又不能影響其在有作戰需要時指揮行動的權力。相關部隊必須接受多個作戰司令部的命令,並且有效地優化和反饋戰場信息。目前,派往前線的部隊獨立性越來越高,通過全球信息柵格的幫助他們可以來回地越過戰區作戰司令部的邊界,戰區作戰司令部對網絡作戰的輔助和對抗作用因此而受到了損害,施行集中化指揮以後,部隊就不能或者說不願意響應戰區作戰司令部的要求了。

在2004年參與印尼海嘯救助工作的時候,太平洋司令部(PACOM:Pacific Command)首次在人道援助行動中採取了“聯合嘗試”的方式。太平洋司令部向被分派有任務的部隊發出指令,讓他們在整個行動計劃的框架之下進行特別的網絡防禦工作。很多海軍部隊和海軍陸戰隊的部隊在海軍全球網絡作戰中心的集中化指揮下,建立了一些相對直接的網絡防禦措施,這些措施超越了太平洋司令部給海軍和海軍陸戰隊分配的任務範圍,這就給太平洋司令部的全球網絡作戰帶來了潛在的危險因素。

作戰司令部很關心總是強調的對全球信息柵格進行集中化控制的思想會降低他們對全球信息柵格的信息掌握度和控制力度。在現有的指揮制度下,一個單位會在其所在部隊的指揮權下進行訓練或者執行其他任務,在戰區作戰司令部的指揮權下參加戰鬥,指揮控制的條理非常清晰。對部隊在信息領域的指揮控制與對其在空中、陸上、海上和空間領域的指揮控制同等重要。對C3S系統(control, communications and computer systems)來說,在其指揮下進行作戰並負責保護它的部隊常常要處於雙重甚至三重的報告鏈中,結果最後分不清到底是誰在負責指揮戰鬥。在全球性或者非全局性事件中,全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊經常繞開戰區作戰司令部直接展開行動。儘管聯合網絡作戰的作戰概念專門強調了與戰區作戰司令部進行協調作戰的要求,但是在現代作戰快速變化的環境中,這條要求幾乎成了擺設。信息保障弱點警報系統、計算機任務序列和信息條件調整系統在作戰司令部的轄區之外出現問題就是這條要求失效的典型例子。這些事件直接影響了戰區作戰司令部在戰場上的指揮,當部隊想要直接利用這些機制從管理級上加強自身的控制的時候,他們不能判斷應該在何時、以什麼樣的方式在執行這些操作,也不知道這樣做會對戰區作戰司令部的指揮產生什麼影響,因為在目前的條件下,只有戰區作戰司令部才有能力來進行這些操作。當一個威脅事件需要空軍太空司令部向空軍部隊尋求全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的協同配合的時候,如果不通知或者取得與北方司令部的合作的話,將會給北方司令部的指揮帶來極大的麻煩。

在中央司令部,由於對網絡作戰部隊缺乏足夠的控制,導致指揮官有時候也不能確定網絡資源是否可用。海軍負責操作大量的戰場信息柵格,在作戰區域的海軍網絡作戰部隊並不用對中央司令部的海軍部負責,他們只需要向戰區網絡作戰與安全中心報告。中央司令部的中央戰區戰區網絡作戰中心,其職責是維持和指揮所有戰區作戰司令部的網絡作戰,但是它也不在海軍網絡作戰部隊的報告鏈當中,所以也常常不能獲得所有戰場信息柵格上的事態感知,目前已經有替代辦法來處理這個問題了,不過這還不能說是正式的解決辦法。

對北方司令部來說,因為網絡作戰部隊的控制權的缺乏,他們在2005年“卡特琳娜”颶風的救援工作中遇到了極大的麻煩。在那次行動中,部隊的設備在未經許可的情況下就被運送到了聯合作戰區域。這使得北方司令部無法掌握和引導物資的調動情況,更無法協同各個部隊的行動,這是個多方位的管理和操作問題。

在各個部隊都主張施行在以全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊為中心的集中化指揮構架的時候,我們有必要強調一個事實,那就是戰區司令部並不願意看到這樣的變化,他們想保持原有的他們對戰略司令部負責,擁有全球信息柵格的操作權和防禦權的機制。戰略司令部的存在對保持戰區作戰司令部在戰區和全球性事件的作戰行動中的指揮地位以及增強戰區作戰司令部與聯合參謀部的溝通都有很大的幫助。

作戰司令部和部隊方面都想從聯合作戰的層面上對網絡作戰進行集中化指揮,但是其中有幾個問題還需要討論:

1.誰負第一領導責任?

2.網絡作戰進行集中化指揮具體在哪個層面上得到體現,全球層面、戰區層面還是其他什麼層面?

3.這種調整帶來的改變是僅僅體現在戰區作戰司令部的某個部門向全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊發出請求時還是戰區作戰司令部獲得戰區內的完全指揮權和優先權?

最後,戰區作戰司令部是最終對總統負責的以完成轄區內的軍事任務為目標的機構,被派遣到戰區作戰司令部的部隊需要在其管轄權之下完成各自的任務。因此在部隊方面主張實施全球性的集中指揮的時候,他們仍然會處於戰略司令部的指揮之下這一點是不容置疑的。但是目前全球信息柵格是影響戰區作戰司令部的指揮控制能力和指揮官對部隊的指導能力的關鍵一環。沒有全球信息柵格的話,飛機不能飛行、地面部隊無法移動、艦艇不能航行,連衛星都不能提供信號。指揮官們需要獲取全球信息柵格的狀態並進行控制,就像他們需要掌握部隊的方位和狀態一樣重要。他們必須要掌握戰場信息柵格的範圍、能力和狀態,必須知道戰區以外的情況會如何影響部隊所在區域的戰場信息柵格,還必須能夠指揮和優化部隊配置以支持作戰。如果我們真的相信被描述得天花亂墜的集中化指揮會有更好的效果,那也不能忽視為戰區作戰司令部保留適當的指揮和控制權。

還有,只要戰區作戰司令部這種結構還保留著,那麼所有的軍事任務,包括那些由職能作戰司令部指揮的作戰,都必然還是會發生在戰區作戰司令部的防區內,因為所有的網絡作戰任務都必定要由一個實體單位來執行。同時,集中化指揮對於實現以網絡為中心的指揮模式以及更加有效地防禦攻擊、傳遞信息都是必要的。這種集中化指揮的概念與戰區作戰司令部要求掌握和優化戰場信息柵格的願望是不互斥的。

前進之路

要想制定出一套可行的網絡作戰指揮控制框架,必須要避免走極端,既要考慮戰區作戰司令部的需要,也要考慮建立對全球信息柵格的集中化控制的需要。在目前聯合網絡作戰的作戰概念的發展過程和網絡作戰部隊的轉型過程中,組織原則需要發揮調整各方利益的槓桿作用。為了達到這樣的目標,國防部應該做到以下幾點:

1.創建一個簡單、明確的網絡作戰指揮鏈,保證戰略司令部可以對所有的網絡作戰行動進行指揮。這就可以解決剛才提到的“誰負第一領導責任”的問題。只有當事件發生在快速變化的環境中的時候,戰區指揮控制機構才開始發揮作用。簡潔的指揮鏈可以保證參加網絡作戰的部隊知道自己應該聽從誰的指揮、應該向誰報告,在這條指揮鏈中,必須包括戰區作戰司令部。

2.可以賦予戰區作戰司令部在其防區內的指揮權:

——修正聯合司令部計劃以明確戰區作戰司令部在其防區內對網絡作戰的職責。

——修正已有的全球信息柵格網絡作戰概念,詳細說明那些處在戰區網絡作戰與安全中心之外的部隊可以從戰區作戰司令部的全球網絡作戰與安全中心獲得直接援助。

——規定全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的所有命令都要通過戰區作戰司令部來執行。

這些調整可以保證戰區中的所有單位都在唯一的一條指揮鏈下行動,那就是通過戰區作戰司令部對戰略司令部負責。這也可以解決北方司令部應該對轄區負責但是又沒有指揮網絡作戰的權力的尷尬境地。

3.在每個戰區作戰司令部建立一個由中央司令部管轄的聯合網絡作戰中心,將戰區作戰司令部的戰區網絡作戰控制中心和全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的戰區網絡作戰中心進行融合。這樣一來,每個戰區作戰司令部都將有一個在計算機空間領域的聯合作戰司令部,就像在海陸空的實體戰場上一樣。任何處在戰區網絡作戰與安全中心之外的部隊都可以從聯合網絡作戰中心的全球網絡作戰與安全中心獲得直接援助。

4.鞏固全球信息柵格的地位,將最高控制權交給戰略司令部。目前集中化指揮的發展偏重於對參與網絡作戰的部隊的指揮,這與以網絡為中心的指揮概念背道而馳。以部隊為中心的“煙囪”式指揮系統不利於信息的傳遞和處理,讓我們離“為所有使用者提供最新、最準確的信息”的目標越來越遠。在之前的《戈德華特·尼科爾斯國防部重構法》報告中已經明確提到,組織管理和指揮控制應該由一個聯合的機構來掌控。

結束語

目前對網絡作戰的集中化指揮是一個迫切的需要。優化網絡作戰指揮機制可以幫助國防部提高效率、節約成本以及更好地分配緊缺資源。更重要的是,這樣可以讓網絡作戰部隊更加快速、準確地為指揮官提供信息,這在大規模的網絡作戰中非常重要。集中化指揮的進程不能影響到網絡作戰指揮控制的效率。這取決於全球信息柵格能否為所有參戰的單位提供足夠的信息以及指揮官是否充分利用戰區信息柵格來幫助指揮作戰。

“我們必須改變對網絡作戰問題的討論和思考模式,我們是在進行網絡“作戰”而不是網絡“管理”,所有的參戰單位必須保證自己每時每刻都準備著開戰,以保證網絡系統這一決定性的武器系統的安全”。網絡作戰是我們國家能夠贏得戰爭的關鍵一環,它可以幫助我們提供指揮和控制、縮短決策週期以及調整各戰區的資源配備。戰略司令部已經在強化網絡作戰概念方面邁出了很大的一步,這些努力還需要繼續進行下去。戰區作戰司令部必須是掌控和防護全球信息柵格的重要一環,以保證我們可以繼續取得網絡作戰的勝利。

Reference URL:  http://www.china.com.cn/military

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

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

浅析伊拉克战争中美军网络中心战

 

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

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

· Construction of the US military network centric warfare architecture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Mandarin Chinese:

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

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


·美军构建网络化作战结构

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

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

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

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

·伊拉克战争中网络中心战的具体应用

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

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

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

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

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

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

·伊拉克战争中网络中心战的部分装备

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·美军发展网络中心战的特点

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

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

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

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