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

Chinese Military Informationization Trends – Cyber Integrated Battlefield // 中國軍事信息化趨勢 – 網絡綜合戰場

Chinese Military Informationization Trends – Cyber Integrated Battlefield // 中國軍事信息化趨勢 – 網絡綜合戰場

Source: PLA Daily

The army has given birth to the military and other military services. With the advent of the information age, the integration of battlefields and combat operations has made the integration of services a new trend and destination for the development of military construction.

Service integration: the general trend of informationized army construction

■Wang Xueping

The development of things often presents a spiral rising path, following the law of negation of negation. The development of human military activities, especially military construction, is also in line with this law. Before the information age, the army of the army was from one to many. The army had given birth to the sea and air. With the advent of the information age, the rapid development of technology has made the integration of military services a trend and a destination for the development of new military construction.

The future battlefield does not distinguish between land, sea and air

Under the condition of mechanization, the pattern of independent existence of land, sea, air and sky battlefields began to merge under the catalysis of the new military revolution. Multidimensional and multi-war occasions are the basic forms of the future battlefield.

The promotion of rapid development of science and technology. With the continuous development of science and technology and the improvement of mankind’s ability to control the battlefield, it is an inevitable trend that the battlefield will be dispersed from integration to integration. Science and technology are the driving force for the integration of battlefields and unlimited expansion into the air. The development of high-tech such as information technology, positioning and guidance technology has made the performance of weapons and equipment surpass the traditional land, sea and airspace boundaries. Global mobility, global arrival and global strike have become the targets of the development of the military of the world’s military power. The development of space situational awareness technology integrates surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence, meteorology, command, control and communication, and integrates the battlefield information network to realize battlefield information sharing. Joint operations and precision strikes become the basic style of future warfare. The rapid development of space technology has made the surface information and the information of the global environment unobstructed. The expansion of the battlefield into space has condensed the traditional land, sea and air battlefields into one, becoming a stepping stone and pedal for the vast innocent space battlefield.

The inevitable evolution of the form of war. With the in-depth development of the new military revolution, the intensity of the war to informationization will further increase. Informatized warfare is not only a “speed war” but also a “precise war” and an “integrated war.” The acceleration of the war integration process is first manifested in the integration of land, sea and airspace, and the integration of the scope of the battlefield as the war develops. This is the basic condition for information warfare. The speed of war and the improvement of precision strike capability require that the military must have global maneuver, global combat and precision strike capability that transcends land, sea and air, cross-border, trans-ocean, and vacant, and battlefield integration is the basic guarantee. The war science and technology contest has intensified, and the requirements for battlefield resource sharing have become more obvious. Military personnel have broken through the geographical and military barriers and broke the boundary between land, sea and airspace. It is an important weight to win the war.

The requirements for quick fixes in combat objectives. Speed ​​and precision are the main thrust of future wars. Eliminating battlefield barriers, integrating land, sea, air, and battlefields is the way to reach a speedy battle. The quickness and determination of the purpose of informatized warfare has promoted the integration of force preparation, equipment and operations. The integration of force preparation, equipment and operations has also promoted the arrival of battlefield integration. The military system is integrated into the arms and services. The scope of action has surpassed the narrow space of a single service. The ability to operate in a wide area and in a large space makes it difficult to divide the battlefield into a land battlefield, a sea battlefield, and an air battlefield. Weapons and equipment combines the performance of land, sea and air weapons. Its combat function surpasses the land, sea and airspace range, providing material conditions and support for battlefield integration. The strategic battle tactical action is integrated into one, the joint operations are divided into groups, the small squad completes the large task, and the informatized war characteristics of the tactical action strategy purpose will inevitably catalyze the dispersed battlefield toward one.

Signs of military integration appear quietly

While the development of science and technology is promoting the rapid birth of new arms, the cohesiveness of war integration is also affecting the integration of military construction. Under the conditions of informationization, the trend of integration of arms and services is becoming more and more obvious, and there is a tendency to accelerate development.

The theory of integration theory is repeated. The fusion of theory is a prelude to the integration of the military, and it is the magic weapon and sword to win the information war. Under the impact of the new military revolution, theoretical innovations have surpassed the waves, especially the integration of theoretical innovations aimed at joint operations. In order to adapt to the new changes in the form of war and the international pattern, in the 2010 “four-year defense assessment report” of the United States, the theory of joint operations of “sea and air warfare” was clearly put forward. In order to adapt to the requirements of the network-centric warfare, the French military integration theory innovation is at the forefront. The Army proposed the air-to-ground combat bubble theory, and the Navy proposed the theory of joint action from sea to land. The Indian Army has referenced and learned from the US “air-ground integration” and “quick-decisive” operational theories, and put forward the “cold-start” operational theory. The core is to strengthen the cooperation between the army and the sea and air force in order to seek the initiative of the operation and strive for the shortest time. The purpose of the battle is achieved within.

Integrated equipment surfaced. The rapid development of science and technology has continuously enhanced the comprehensive functions of weapons and equipment, and integrated equipment integrating land, sea, air and sky has become a material support and an important driving force for the development of military services. In order to win the initiative of integrated joint operations, the world’s military powers have accelerated the research and development of integrated equipment. The US military “Independence” stealth warship, which was once popular, is a very typical new integrated equipment. The ship integrates anti-submarine, mine-clearing, surveillance, reconnaissance and force deployment functions. It can carry three helicopters, some special forces and armored vehicles, and integrates the “ground and air” equipment. The ship-borne gun can carry out three-dimensional attacks on missiles launched from air, land and underwater targets, which greatly enhances the integrated combat capability of the equipment.

The integrated forces first appeared. The future informationized warfare is an integrated joint warfare operation carried out in multi-dimensional space such as land, sea, air, sky, and information. It is required that the participating troops must be an integrated military system. To meet this requirement, the army of the world’s powerful countries has intensified the construction of integrated forces. Joint expeditionary forces such as the US military include the Army Division, the Naval Aircraft Carrier Combat Group, the Marine Corps Division (sub-) and the Air Force Fighter Wing. The Russian military formed a mobile unit that spanned three services and one independent unit, including the Army’s Mobility Division, tank division, special brigade, rocket brigade, air force fighter, attack aircraft, bomber regiment, naval marine battalion and airborne troops. Airborne division. The rapid reaction force formed by France consists of different types of divisions of five arms. In accordance with operational needs, Germany has directly organized the Defence Forces into three units: the Intervention Force, the Stabilization Force and the Support Force. It can be seen that the integrated forces of multiple arms and services have become the direction of army construction and development in the information age.

Looking into the future, planning the army of today

The integration of the services and the ultimate integration are the inherent requirements of the information war and the basic law of the army’s construction and development. This law does not shift from people’s will. In order to seek the initiative of army building, we should follow this trend and make forward-looking decisions in promoting the integration of the military.

In-depth exploration of the theory of military integration. Theory is the forerunner of action, and it is the reflection on the top of the mountain. Aiming at the trend of the times, accumulating strength and finding countermeasures through theoretical research is the experience and practice of world-class military construction and development. The first is to strengthen the theoretical exploration of integrated construction. We should study the issue of integrated military construction as soon as possible, explore the construction goals, standards, paths, methods, and methods of the integrated military, and build bridges and paved roads for the military integration. The second is to strengthen the exploration of integrated operational theory. The development trend of military integration will inevitably bring about new changes in combat theory. It is necessary to strengthen the study of the characteristics of the integrated military operations, strengthen the study of integrated military operations and command methods, strengthen the study of the basic military tactics of the integrated military, and make forward-looking theories a traction in the development of military construction. The third is to strengthen the theoretical exploration of new talent training. To train new talents that meet the needs of the development of integrated military construction needs to be prepared in theory. The institutional structure, teaching content and teaching methods of colleges and universities need to focus on the law of integrated military construction and development, theoretically research, clear, and even through pilot exploration, so that the training of college personnel can adapt to the general trend of military integration development as soon as possible. For the development of integrated military construction, it is necessary to make a good talent reserve.

Accelerate the development of integrated equipment for the military. Integrated equipment is the material basis for the integration of services. In line with the general trend of the development of integrated military construction, our military should speed up the research and development of military integrated weapons and equipment. The first is the “collection” type of equipment. For example, the aircraft carrier-style “collection” type of equipment, with the hull as the basic platform, fuses fighters, artillery, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, and chariots into one, so that the equipment has the ability to multi-domain and multi-air combat. Our military should develop such “collection” type equipment based on land or sea or air, and promote the development of weapons and equipment to the integration of various arms and services. The second is the “all-round” type of equipment. In the future, the equipment must be able to run on the ground, fly in the air, swim in the water, and operate at high speed on the water, underwater, on land, and in the air, and the “human outfit” is integrated. The combatants follow the operational needs. Become a super equipment that “takes the sea and catches the moon, and picks up the moon.”

Explore the construction of a military united army. Comply with the general trend of the integration and development of the informatized military, actively promote the exploration of the construction of the military-integrated forces, and explore ways to accumulate experience for the development of military integration. Under the current circumstances, it is mainly necessary to build a large article on the integration of hybrid force preparation and create conditions for the integration of the military system. The establishment of a multi-service hybrid pilot unit will be rolled forward in actual combat training. Take the Army as an example, it is to build a hybrid force that integrates rifle, tan, gun, and land. For example, the integrated ground detachment consisting of armored forces, artillery, machine infantry, missile corps, attack and transport helicopter detachments, which was formed by the US Army, foreshadowed the development trend of integrated force formation that broke the arms and even the service line. With the accumulation of experience, the maturity of the conditions, and the improvement of the level of science and technology, the scope of the composition of the force has gradually expanded, and eventually an integrated experimental unit with complete strengths of the arms and services has been established.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

陸軍曾孕育了海、空等軍種。信息時代的到來,戰場、作戰行動的一體化,使得軍種融合成為新型軍隊建設發展的走向與歸宿——

軍種融合:信息化軍隊建設大趨勢

■王雪平

事物的發展往往呈現著螺旋式上昇道路,遵循著否定之否定的規律。人類軍事活動發展特別是軍隊建設也暗合著這種規律要求。在信息時代以前,軍隊的軍種是從一到多,陸軍曾孕育了海、空等軍種。而信息時代的到來,技術的迅猛發展使得軍種融合成為新型軍隊建設發展的走向與歸宿。

未來戰場不分陸海空天

機械化條件下,陸、海、空、天戰場獨立存在的格局,在新軍事革命的催化下開始走向融合,多維立體、多戰場合一是未來戰場的基本形態。

科技快速發展的推動。隨著科技的不斷發展和人類對戰場控制能力的提高,戰場由分散走向融合是必然趨勢。而科學技術則是戰場融合一體,並向空天無限擴展的推動力。信息技術、定位與製導技術等高新技術的發展,使武器裝備性能超越了傳統的陸、海、空域界線,全球機動、全球到達、全球打擊成為世界軍事強國軍隊發展的目標。空間態勢感知技術的發展,使監視、偵察、情報、氣象、指揮、控制和通信等融合一體,一體化戰場信息網絡,實現了戰場信息共享,聯合作戰、精確打擊成為未來戰爭的基本樣式。太空技術的快速發展,使地表信息和地球環境信息盡收眼底,戰場向太空的拓展,使傳統的陸海空戰場濃縮為一體,成為廣闊無垠太空戰場的墊腳石與踏板。

戰爭形態演變的必然。隨著新軍事革命的深入發展,戰爭向信息化演變的力度將進一步加大。信息化戰爭,既是“速度戰爭”,又是“精確戰爭”,更是“一體化戰爭”。戰爭一體化進程的加快,首先表現為陸域、海域、空域的融合,以及隨著戰爭發展而不斷拓展的戰場空間範圍的一體化,這是進行信息化戰爭的基本條件。戰爭速度與精準打擊能力的提升,要求軍隊必須具有超越陸海空界線,跨境、跨海、騰空的全球機動、全球作戰和精確打擊能力,而戰場一體化則是基本保障。戰爭科技較量加劇,戰場資源共享的要求更加明顯,軍事人才更衝破了地域、軍種壁壘,打破陸域、海域、空域戰場界線,是贏得戰爭的重要砝碼。

作戰目的速決的要求。速度與精確是未來戰爭的主旨。而消除戰場壁壘,融陸、海、空、天戰場為一體,則是達成戰爭速決的通道。信息化戰爭作戰目的速決性,推動了部隊編制、裝備、行動的融合。而部隊編制、裝備、行動的融合,又促進了戰場一體化的到來。部隊體制編制諸軍兵種融於一體,行動範圍已超越了單一軍種的狹小空間,廣地域、大空間行動的能力,使戰場很難再分為陸戰場、海戰場和空戰場。武器裝備集陸海空天兵器性能於一身,其作戰功能超越了陸域、海域、空域範圍,為戰場一體化提供了物質條件和支撐。戰略戰役戰術行動融於一體,聯合作戰分隊化,小分隊完成大任務,戰術行動戰略目的的信息化戰爭特性,必然催化分散的戰場走向一體。

軍種融合跡象悄然出現

科技發展在推動新軍兵種快速誕生的同時,戰爭一體化的內聚力也在牽動軍隊建設走向融合。信息化條件下,軍兵種一體化的趨勢日漸明顯,大有加速發展之勢。

一體化理論見解迭出。理論融合是軍種融合的前奏,更是打贏信息化戰爭的法寶與利劍。在新軍事革命大潮衝擊下,理論創新一浪高過一浪,特別是瞄準聯合作戰需要的一體化理論創新更是見解迭出。為適應戰爭形態和國際格局的新變化,2010年度美國《四年防務評估報告》中,明確提出了“海空一體戰”聯合作戰理論。為適應網絡中心戰的要求,法國軍隊一體化理論創新更是走在了前列,陸軍提出了空地作戰氣泡理論,海軍提出了由海向陸聯合行動理論。印度陸軍參考和借鑒美軍“空地一體”和“快速決定性”作戰理論,提出了“冷啟動”作戰理論,核心是強化陸軍與海、空軍的配合作戰,以謀求作戰的主動性,爭取在最短時間內達成作戰目的。

一體化裝備浮出水面。科技的快速發展,使武器裝備的綜合功能不斷增強,融陸、海、空、天於一身的一體化裝備不斷問世,成為軍兵種編制向一體化發展的物質支撐和重要推動力。為贏得一體化聯合作戰的主動權,世界軍事強國紛紛加快了一體化裝備的研發力度。曾經熱炒的美軍“獨立號”隱形戰艦,就是非常典型的新型一體化裝備。該艦融反潛、掃雷、監視、偵察和兵力部署綜合功能於一體,可載3架直升機、一些特種部隊和裝甲車,融“地空”裝備於一身。艦載炮可對空中、陸地和水下目標發射導彈進行立體攻擊,使裝備的一體化戰鬥力大大提升。

一體化部隊初見端倪。未來信息化戰爭,是在陸、海、空、天、信息等多維空間進行的一體化聯合作戰行動,要求參戰部隊必須是一體化的軍事系統。適應這一要求,世界強國軍隊紛紛加大了一體化部隊建設的力度。如美軍組建的聯合遠征部隊包括陸軍師、海軍航母戰鬥群、海軍陸戰隊部(分)隊和空軍戰鬥機聯隊。俄軍組建的機動部隊橫跨3個軍種和1個獨立兵種,包括陸軍的摩步師、坦克師、特種旅、火箭旅,空軍的戰鬥機、強擊機、轟炸機團,海軍的陸戰隊營和空降兵的空降師。法國組建的快速反應部隊由5個軍兵種的不同類型師組成。德國則根據作戰需求把國防軍直接編組為乾涉部隊、穩定部隊和支援部隊三種性質部隊。足見,多軍兵種一體化部隊已成為信息時代軍隊建設發展的方向。

放眼未來謀劃今日之軍

軍種融合,並最終走向一體,是信息化戰爭的內在要求,是軍隊建設發展的基本規律。這一規律不以人們的意志為轉移。謀求軍隊建設的主動性,我們就應該順應這一趨勢,在推進軍隊一體化建設上前瞻決策,未雨綢繆。

深入探索軍種一體理論。理論是行動的先導,更是“山頂”上的思考。瞄準時代走向,通過理論研究積蓄力量、尋找對策,是世界一流軍隊建設發展的經驗做法。一是加強一體化建設理論探索。應儘早研究一體化軍隊建設問題,探索一體化軍隊的建設目標、標準、路徑、方式、方法,為軍隊一體化建設從理論上搭好橋樑、鋪好路基。二是加強一體化作戰理論探索。軍隊一體化發展趨勢必然帶來作戰理論的全新變化。要加強一體化軍隊作戰運用的特點規律研究,加強一體化軍隊作戰行動和指揮方法研究,加強一體化軍隊基本戰法研究,讓前瞻性的理論成為軍隊建設發展的牽引。三是加強新型人才培養理論探索。培養適應一體化軍隊建設發展需要的新型人才,需要在理論上早做準備。院校的體制格局、教學內容、教學方法都需要著眼一體化軍隊建設發展規律,從理論上研究透,搞清楚,甚至通過試點探索,使院校人才培養儘早適應軍隊一體化發展的大趨勢,為一體化軍隊建設發展需要做好人才儲備。

加速軍種一體裝備研製。一體化裝備是軍種融合的物質基礎。順應一體化軍隊建設發展的大趨勢,我軍應加快軍種一體武器裝備的研發。一是“集合”型裝備。如航空母艦式的“集合”型裝備,其以艦體為基本平台,融戰機、火砲、高炮、導彈、戰車於一體,使裝備具有海陸空天多域多空作戰的能力。我軍應研發這種以陸或海或空為基本平台的“集合”型裝備,推進武器裝備建設向諸軍兵種融合一體方向發展。二是“全能”型裝備。今後的裝備要達到地上能跑、空中能飛、水中能遊,水上水下、陸上、空天都可高速機動作戰,而且“人裝”一體,戰鬥人員根據作戰需要隨進隨出,真正成為“下海捉鱉,上天摘月”的超能裝備。

進行軍種一體部隊建設探索。順應信息化軍隊一體化建設發展的大勢,積極推進軍種一體部隊建設探索,為軍隊一體化建設發展探索路子、積累經驗。當前情況下,主要應做好建設混合型部隊編制融合的大文章,為軍種體制編制走向一體創造條件。組建多兵種混合一體試點部隊,在實戰訓練中滾動推進。以陸軍為例,就是建設融步、坦、炮、陸航等兵種於一體的混合型部隊。如,美陸軍組建的由裝甲兵、砲兵、機步兵、導彈兵、攻擊與運輸直升機分隊組成的一體化地面分隊,預示了打破兵種甚至軍種界線的一體化部隊編制的發展趨勢。隨著經驗的積累、條件的成熟,以及科技水平的提高,部隊力量構成的範圍逐漸擴大,最終組建成軍兵種力量齊全的一體化試驗部隊。

Original referring url: http://www.mod.gov.cn/mobilization/2017-07/28/

Chinese Military Analysis of Korean Army Network Centric Warfare Capabilities // 中國軍事韓軍“網絡中心戰”建設現狀及未來發展趨勢

Chinese Military Analysis of Korean Army Network Centric Warfare Capabilities //

中國軍事韓軍“網絡中心戰”建設現狀及未來發展趨勢

  

“Network-centric warfare” is an important symbol in the evolution of mechanized warfare to informatized warfare. It is a high-level form of joint warfare in the information age, and a new type of warfare on the information-based battlefield of the “platform center warfare”. In recent years. Han Jun continues to deepen his understanding of network-centric warfare. Accelerated the pace of the army’s informatization construction. Han Jun’s network-centric warfare concept is embodied by the Korean military command and control system, the military information system, and the Korea-US Joint Operational Information System. This paper analyzes the status quo and future development trend of Han Jun’s “network center warfare” from the aspects of network center warfare, Korean military defense informationization, Hanjun C4I system construction, and Korea-US joint information system construction.

First, the composition of national defense information

  The field of national defense informationization in Korea consists of five areas: basic system, modeling and simulation (M&S: Modeling & Simulation), interoperability and standardization, information security, and application systems. The basic system field consists of communication networks, servers, computers, and basic software. The field of modeling and simulation refers to the training exercise simulation system and simulation analysis system for NC Cent (Network Centric Warfare), and the simulation based acquisition (SBA) for procurement management.

  Interoperability and standardization are prerequisites for the implementation of network-centric warfare theory. Through interoperability and standardization, information interconnection, interoperability, interoperability and real-time perception and sharing of battlefield information can be realized. Interoperability and standardization cover technical standardization, system construction standardization, and user interface standardization.

  Information network technology brings high benefits to military construction and operational command, and also brings high risks to military information security. At present, information network technology is widely used in various fields of the Korean Army, and information security is also facing various severe challenges. The main contents of information security include: in order to ensure the integrity, availability and confidentiality of information, establish a security system under the wireless local area network (LAN) and ALL-IP environment, establish a sound information security system, and establish the security of the Korean-American information system. Program and other aspects.

  The application system consists of a battlefield management system and a resource management system. The battlefield management system consists of a command and control system called the C4I system, a military information system that collects, processes, and transmits information, and a Korean-US joint operational information system. Han Jun’s command and control system consists of the Korean Joint Command and Control System (KJCCS: Korea Joint Command and Control System), the Ground Tactical Command Information System (ATCIS), and the Naval Tactical C4I System (KNCCS: Korea Naval Command Control System). ), Air Force Command and Control System (AFCCS), Joint Fire Operation System (JFOS-K: Joint Fire Operation System-Korea), Rear Area Tactical C4I System, Brigade Command System (B2CS: Battalion Battle Command System). The Korean military military information system consists of the Military Information Management System (MIMS). The Korea-US Joint Operations Information System consists of the Joint Operations C4I System – Joint Command and Control System (AKJCCS: Allied Korea Joint Command and Control System), Joint Military Information Distribution System (MIMS-C) and the US Army Global Joint Information Exchange System – Korea System (CENTRIXS-K), US Pacific Command Automated Data Processing System – PASS-K: Pacific Command Automated Data Processing Server Site-Korea.

  The resource management system is an automated information system for improving the utilization efficiency of national defense resources. It is divided into four major areas: planning finance, personnel mobilization, military needs facilities, and electronic administration. There are comprehensive financial information systems and results management systems in the planning and finance field; personnel information systems, integrated distance education systems, and mobilization information systems in the personnel mobilization field; military needs comprehensive information systems, facility information systems, transportation information systems, and ammunition information systems in the field of military needs. , defense terrain information system, medical information system; electronic administrative field has a comprehensive defense knowledge management system, business management system, record management system.

<Figure 1> Defense Information Application System.
<Figure 1> Defense Information Application System.

Second, the construction of the Korean Army C4I system

  Han Jun’s battlefield management system consists of five major systems: KJCCS, ATCIS, KNCCS, AFCCS, and MIMS. As of 2010, all these systems have been completed. Performance improvements were made to the ATCIS system and the AFCCS system in 2011, and performance improvements were made to the KJCCS system since 2012. In 2010, the system development of the ATCIS system in the rear area was completed, and the actual deployment was completed in June 2011. Since 2009, the research and development work of the B2CS system and the preliminary research work of the ATCIS system have been carried out. In 2011, B2CS system development and ATCIS system performance improvement research and development projects were comprehensively promoted. It is estimated that in 2015, system development and test evaluation will be completed, and in 2020, it will be deployed to military-level combat units.

  KJCCS’s performance improvement work is mainly to prepare for the establishment of the first group army and the third group army integrated/merged ground combat command. It is expected that after the performance improvement of KJCCS, the powerful new features will be greatly improved in terms of reliability, survivability and security.

  ATCIS in the rear area will establish an information sharing system between the Army’s 2nd Combat Command and each team. The ATCIS in the rear area will be able to effectively adapt to the operational tasks and types of operations undertaken by the 2nd Combat Command, and it is highly targeted and operable. In addition, ATCIS in the rear area will be able to interoperate with KJCCS, MIMS and other systems to provide an integrated information environment for the vast rear battlefield management, ensuring high information sharing.

  The B2CS system is the command and control system used by the Army Brigade to the squad combat units. The B2CS system will use situational awareness and information acquisition as the forerunner to realize a variety of data information sharing and visual interaction. It is a system integrating command, control, communication and intelligence, which can effectively guarantee the command and control (C2OTM) in action.

  At present, the Korean Army’s brigade-level units are only equipped with limited C4I terminals and Position Reporting Equipment (PRE), and the commanders below the squad level are not equipped with relevant equipment. After the actual deployment of the B2CS system, it will realize the visual sharing of the battlefield information from the military to the squad through interconnection with ATCIS, and provide the basis for the close cooperation and real-time coordinated action of various combat forces and the integration of command and control.

  The ATCIS system performance improvement project is to build a network platform for the existing system to achieve interaction between the ATCIS system and 50 weapon systems. In addition, as a supplement and extension of the wired network, a command center wireless local area network (LAN) will be constructed for the ATCIS system to enhance the flexibility of the operational network.

  In response to the transfer of wartime operational command, Han Jun is promoting the research and development of AKJCCS system, MIMS-C system and JFOS-K system. It is expected that the AKJCCS system will interact with the CENTRIXS-K system, the CENTRIXS-K system will interact with the CENTRIXS-K system, and the JFOS-K system will interact with the US military’s firepower system.

  In the course of using the battlefield information management system of Han Jun, many problems were discovered. At present, system improvement work for KJCCS, ATCIS, and AFCCS is underway, but KNCCS and MIMS have made little progress in this regard. The system performance upgrade work mainly focuses on interoperability with other systems, improving the authentication system, adding some application functions, and diversifying system expansion.

Judging from the current situation, the construction of the Korean Army C4I system mainly has the following problems:

  First, in the battlefield management information system construction needs assessment stage, the proposed conceptual operational performance (ROC, Required Operational Capability) is directly reflected in the concept research phase, and then through the entire process of system development. In this way, the ROC is only based on the judgment of the R&D personnel, and is out of line with the level, type, and actual situation of the troops. As a result, the battlefield management system is singular and cannot provide the required information to the combat units in a targeted manner, resulting in users usually using only some of the functions.

  In order to solve these problems, the ROC should first be completed with the participation of developers and users. This will fully reflect the user’s needs and make the system more practical for practical use. The user interface and usage functions should also be personalized. According to the different positions and responsibilities of the troops, the corresponding functions should be set up, and a number of nodes with different functions, which can be randomly combined, aggregated in efficiency, and can adapt and act in one body, Provide a strong foundation for the combat system.

  Second, in the specific promotion stage of battlefield management information system construction, from the communication network to the application system construction, the old road of “chimney development” has been taken, resulting in “chimneys” and mutual disjoint, which greatly restricted the army. The improvement of comprehensive combat capability. Although the Korean Ministry of Defense issued a number of regulations and guidelines, it is required to follow the relevant technical standards from system development to system construction, but the actual situation is that these regulations have not been specifically implemented. As a result, the information of the Korean military battlefield management system is not well connected. The three military C4I systems—ATCIS, KNCCS, AFCCS, and military information system MIMS can only be indirectly linked through KJCCS.

  In the 2009 and 2010 “Key Decisions/鹞鹰” joint exercises, there was a problem with the Common Operational Picture (COP), which failed to accurately and real-time update and improve the comprehensive sensory intelligence information of the battlefield. The results of the 2011 review by the Institute of the Ombudsman confirmed this. The specific errors are the position of the troops, the number of troops, the size of the troops, and the major equipment intelligence. The main reasons are serious problems in coding management, system interaction, database (DB) management, and information input.

  In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to introduce not only a system based on a command and control personal computer (C2PC) that the US military is using, but also to standardize COP data. The common use in the Common Commitment Map (COP) does not mean that all users in the information system are watching the same picture. Universal means that all users share the same data source. That is, the Joint Chiefs of Staff shared the true standardized common operational map data with the three armed forces. Each user saw different presentations provided by the same data source that he or she needed.

  Third, the core of the battlefield management information system–the application system has the necessary functions required for the troops to perform tasks, but at present it only realizes the automation of the business and functions, and can not achieve the organic integration of command and control at all levels. In addition, the functional development of the application system lacks top-level design and system planning, lacks communication and collaboration, and objectively causes low level of interconnection between systems, which cannot meet the actual needs of users. From the current point of view, it is difficult to provide resource optimization configuration plans and strong decision support to commanders and operational staff.

  The information system is only automated, meaning that there is no business process analysis (BPA) in the system development process, and no reasonable and scientific business processes are formed. It can be said that one of the most important aspects of system development is Business Process Analysis (BPA). In the specific development, the current business process status analysis (As-Is) should be performed first. Once problems are identified or areas that need improvement, they are redesigned to the type of process that the user expects (to-Be) or optimizes. In this way, business process reengineering (BPR) based on the analysis of existing business processes can generate new and more reasonable business processes.

  System function development does not only include software development. Research and development personnel of information systems generally believe that software development is the entire content of system function development, and data is only the content that the system transmits during the operation. In fact, the purpose of the software is to process the data, not independent. That is to say, in the process of business process, the system and data should be promoted in parallel; in the process of system development, the data should be processed into the form required by the user. This means that business process modeling (BPM: Business Process Modeling) and data modeling (DM: Data Modeling), business standardization and data standardization should be carried out simultaneously.

  Fourth, for the weapon system, if the improvement needs are found after the development is completed, the performance improvement work will be carried out after all the problems are integrated, and there will not be too many problems. However, for the information system, even if the function is very perfect, if a specific user proposes a new functional requirement, it cannot be updated in time and improved in time, which will directly affect the actual use of the system. Without the flexibility and reliability to meet business and performance needs, information systems can hardly play a role in improving operational effectiveness.

  It is very important to establish a sound information system optimization and maintenance system, and timely reflect business requirements/performance requirements in the operation of the system. This is simpler and more effective than directly advancing performance improvement projects. Therefore, it is necessary to designate the system R&D department to be responsible for the optimization and upgrading of the system throughout its life cycle. To this end, it is also necessary to invest the corresponding budget.

III. Construction of the joint information system between Korea and the United States

  The CENTRIXS-K system and the PASS-K system were designed and used by the US military to share information with the Korean Army C4I system and military information systems. It is particularly worth mentioning that the CENTRIXS-K system is the joint operational command and control system of Korea and the United States under the leadership of the Korea-US Joint Command.

  After the transfer of wartime operational command, the command of wartime operations will be dominated by the current joint command of South Korea and the United States, becoming a new model dominated by the Korean army and supported by the US military. This means that the command organization has changed from the current single system of the Korea-US Joint Command to the two command systems of the Korean Army and the US Army in Korea. At present, both Korea and the United States are considering the disintegration of the Korea-US Joint Command, the adaptation of the Korea-Jin United Association, and the establishment of the US Korean Command (US KORCOM). At that time, the chairman of the Korean Federation of Senate will be responsible for commanding the Korean army, and the US South Korean Command (Commander of the US Army in South Korea) will be responsible for commanding the troops under the jurisdiction of the US military. In addition, South Korea and the United States will also establish new cooperation institutions, in which the Alliance Military Cooperation Headquarters will assist the Military Commission (MC) to carry out strategic cooperation; the theater-level cooperation agencies will be responsible for specific cooperation matters between the Korean Federation of Senate and the US Korean Command; The Combatant Command-level cooperation agency will be responsible for specific cooperation matters between the Korean-American combat command-level forces.

  In the face of this change in organizational structure, it is necessary for the ROK to strengthen the system construction required by Korea’s leading command and control and the Korea-US cooperation mechanism. To this end, Hanshen is developing the AKJCCS system and the MIMS-C system. It is expected that the AKJCCS system and the MIMS-C system will be used as a theater-level information circulation, joint operational command and control, joint operational function support, and cooperation means of military cooperation agencies between the two countries. As a result, changes will be brought to the command and control systems and support systems in the Korea-US Joint Information System. That is, the Korean Army through the KJCCS system, the US military through the CENTRIXS-K system to command and control their respective combat forces; the Korean Army’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Korean Army’s various combat command through the KJCCS system using the main functions of the AKJCCS system, the United States and South Korea Command And the US military combat command uses the main functions of the AKJCCS system through the CENTRIXS-K system.

  In 2015, after the transfer of wartime operational command, the Korean Army’s battlefield management information system and the US military’s C4I system will achieve a fairly level of interconnection, interoperability, and interoperability. Han Jun’s battlefield management will be implemented through the KJCCS system and the three military C4I systems – ATCIS system, KNCCS system, AFCCS system, and the joint operation of Korea and the United States will be implemented through the CENTRIXS-K system and the AKJCCS system. The existing system interaction mechanism will be maintained between the Korean-American Air Force/Naval Combat Force, and the non-interoperability between the Korean-US Army/Marine Corps combat units will continue.

  The MIMS-C system is currently in the research and development stage, and the MIMS system is only used as the Korean military’s own military information system.

  From the perspective of joint operations, it is important that the AKJCCS system function as much as possible in the interoperability with CENTRIXS-K. The CENTRIXS-K system operation data is provided by various underlying systems, but the AKJCCS system does not have such a lower system application support system, so some functions of the CENTRIXS-K system are difficult to run on the AKJCCS system. These functions include the Crisis Action Standard Operating Procedures (CASOP), the Integrated Decision Support Framework (IDSF), and the Commander’s Critical Information Requirement (CCIR), 5X8 Card. SIGEVENT: Significant Event, etc. It is expected that after the transfer of wartime operational command, the AKJCCS system will be able to obtain the information provided by the above functions from the CENTRIXS-K system through a network link.

  Joint Warning and Reporting Network, Joint Weather Impacts System, Theater Battle Management Core System, Theater Ballistic Missile Warning (TBMW) Wait. The CENTRIXS-K system can effectively interconnect, interoperate and interoperate with so many systems. Therefore, the functions of command and control, information sharing, cooperation and coordination, and business support are excellent, and the operation is very smooth without any problems or obstacles. However, Han Jun’s AKJCCS system can only obtain limited data from the KJCCS system, so it has great limitations in function. Therefore, it is also necessary for Han Jun to build the lower system of the AKJCCS system to ensure safe, efficient and stable operation of the AKJCCS system.

Fourth, the trend of the construction of the joint information system between Han Jun and Korea-US

  From the point of view of the Korean military’s individual operations, to improve the combat effectiveness of the battlefield management system, it must have the necessary performance required for the mission.

  First of all, it is necessary to realize the interaction of the Korean and American tactical C4I systems to ensure information sharing and collaboration between Korean and American tactical forces. That is to realize the Korean-American ground forces–Hanjun ATCIS system and the US Army ABCS system, the Korean-American naval–Korean army KNTDS system and the US military CENTRIXS-M system, the Korea-US Air Force–Hanjun AFCCS system and the US Air Force tactics C4I System (ACC-COIN), Korea-US Marine Corps–Hanjun ATCIS system interacts with the US Marine Corps system in real-time or near-real-time systems, and information sharing is very important.

  Secondly, the interactive mode of the current three-armed tactical system-ATICS system, KNCCS system, and AFCCS system centered on the KJCCS system should be changed. This mode has limited the improvement of combat effectiveness. For example, direct interconnection between the three military tactical systems will effectively improve the rapid response capability, rapid maneuverability and coordinated combat capability of the troops. In addition, it is also very important to resolve the transmission delay, data loss and data inconsistency between the three military tactical C4I systems.

  In addition, we should proactively complete the construction of basic communication networks such as top-level design, system integration, continuous promotion of TACT (Tactical Information Communication Network), satellite communication network, etc., and accelerate the establishment of a unified and complete information platform and integrated information network.

In summary, the development direction of the Korean Army C4I system can be summarized as the following four points:

  First, the operational performance requirements (ROC) of the C4I system should be completed with the participation of R&D personnel and users. The system user interface and usage functions should be personalized, providing a strong foundation for situational awareness, command and control, and decision support. support.

  Second, the standardization of data between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the three armed forces, sharing a unified data source (data source) and data standardization common operational map.

  Third, the application system of the C4I system realizes interconnection, interworking, interoperation, data retrieval and troubleshooting can all be performed in the same screen. In addition, in order to form a reasonable and scientific business process, business process analysis (BPA), business process modeling (BPM) and data modeling (DM: Data Modeling) are required.

  Fourth, timely reflect the user’s business needs, performance requirements and improvement requirements, and establish and improve the information system’s optimal maintenance system.

 In addition, the development direction of the Korean-American C4I system can be summarized as the following two points:

  First, learn from the CENTRIXS-K system and build the lower system of the AKJCCS system to ensure efficient and stable operation of the system.

  Second, realize the interaction of the Korean and American tactical C4I systems to ensure information sharing and collaboration between Korean and American tactical forces. Zhiyuan / Everest

Original Mandarin Chinese:

“網絡中心戰”是機械化戰爭形態向信息化戰爭形態演變過程中的一個重要標誌,是信息時代聯合作戰的高級形態,是相對“平台中心戰”的信息化戰場上的一種新型作戰模式。近年來。韓軍不斷深化對網絡中心戰的認識。加快了軍隊信息化建設的步伐。韓軍的網絡中心戰概念是通過韓軍指揮控制系統,軍事信息系統和韓美聯合作戰信息系統來體現的。本文以網絡中心戰為主線,從韓軍國防信息化組成,韓軍C4I系統建設情況,韓美聯合信息系統建設情況等方面分析了韓軍“網絡中心戰”建設現狀和未來發展趨勢。

一,國防信息化組成

韓國國防信息化領域由基礎體系,建模與仿真(M&S:Modeling&Simulation),互操作性與標準化,信息安全,應用系統等五大領域組成。基礎系統領域由通信網,服務器,計算機,基礎軟件等組成。建模與仿真領域指應對網絡中心戰(NCW:Network Centric Warfare)的訓練演習模擬系統和模擬分析系統,用於採辦管理工作的基於仿真的採辦(SBA:Simulation Based Acquisition)等。

互操作性及標準化是網絡中心戰理論得以實踐的前提條件。通過互操作性及標準化,可實現信息互聯,互通,互操作及作戰要素對戰場信息的實時感知與共享。互操作性及標準化的內容涵蓋技術標準化,系統建設標準化,用戶界面標準化等諸多方面。

信息網絡技術在給軍隊建設,作戰指揮帶來高效益的同時,也給軍隊信息安全帶來高風險。目前,信息網絡技術在韓軍各個領域得到廣泛應用,同時信息安全也面臨各種嚴峻挑戰。信息安全的主要內容包括:為了確保信息的完整性,可用性和保密性,制定無線局域網(LAN),ALL-IP環境下的安全制度,建立健全信息安全保障體系,確立韓美信息系統互聯互通安全方案等方面。

應用系統由戰場管理系統和資源管理系統組成。戰場管理系統由被稱為C4I系統的指揮控制系統,收集,處理及傳遞信息的軍事信息系統,韓美聯合作戰信息系統構成。韓軍的指揮控制系統由韓軍聯合指揮控制系統(KJCCS:韓國聯合指揮控制系統),地面戰術C4I系統(ATCIS:陸軍戰術指揮信息系統),海軍戰術C4I系統(KNCCS:韓國海軍指揮控制系統),空軍戰術C4I系統(AFCCS:空軍指揮控制系統),戰區聯合火力運用系統(JFOS-K:聯合火力作戰系統 – 韓國),後方地區戰術C4I系統,大隊級以下戰鬥指揮系統(B2CS:營戰指揮系統)組成。韓軍軍事信息系統由軍事信息綜合處理系統(MIMS:Military Intelligence Management System)組成。韓美聯合作戰信息系統由聯合作戰C4I系統 – 聯合指揮控制系統(AKJCCS:盟軍韓國聯合指揮控制系統),聯合軍事信息流通系統(MIMS-C)和美軍全球聯合情報交換系統 – 韓國分系統(CENTRIXS-K),美國太平洋司令部自動數據處理系統 – 韓國分系統(PASS-K:Pacific Command Automated Data Processing Server Site – 韓國)組成。

資源管理系統是用於提高國防資源利用效率的自動化信息系統,具體分企劃財政,人事動員,軍需設施,電子行政四大領域企劃財政領域有綜合財政信息系統,成果管理系統;人事動員領域有人事信息系統,綜合遠程教育系統,動員信息系統;軍需設施領域有軍需綜合信息系統,設施信息系統,運輸信息系統,彈藥信息系統,國防地形信息系統,醫療信息系統;電子行政領域有國防綜合知識管理系統,業務管理系統,記錄管理系統。

<圖1>國防信息化應用系統。
<圖1>國防信息化應用系統。
二,韓軍C4I系統建設情況
韓軍的戰場管理系統由KJCCS,ATCIS,KNCCS,AFCCS,MIMS等五大系統組成。截止到2010年為止,這些系統已全部建設完畢。2011年對ATCIS系統和AFCCS系統進行了性能改進,2012年起對KJCCS系統進行性能2010改進。年完成後方地區ATCIS系統的體系研發工作,2011年6月完成了實戰部署。2009年年起,進行了B2CS系統的研發工作和ATCIS系統的先期研究工作。2011年, B2CS系統研發和ATCIS系統性能改進研發項目全面推進。預計2015年,將完成體系開發和測試評估工作2020年實戰部署至軍級作戰單位。

KJCCS的性能改進工作主要是為第一集團軍,第三集團軍整合/合併後的地面作戰司令部的設立做準備。預計KJCCS性能改進後,在具備強大的全新功能的同時,在可靠性,生存性,安全性方面會有大幅提升。

後方地區ATCIS將在陸軍第2作戰司令部和各大隊間建立起信息共享系統。後方地區ATCIS將能夠有效適應第2作戰司令部擔負的作戰任務,作戰類型,具有很強的針對性和可操作另外,後方地區ATCIS還將能夠與KJCCS,MIMS等系統實現互聯互通互操作,為廣闊的後方地區戰場管理提供一體化信息環境,保證信息的高度共享。

B2CS系統為陸軍大隊至小隊作戰部隊使用的指揮控制系統.B2CS系統將以態勢感知,信息獲取為先導,實現多種數據信息共享和可視化交互,是集指揮,控制,通信,情報為一體的系統,可有效保障行動中的指揮和控制(C2OTM)。

目前,韓陸軍大隊級部隊僅配備有限的C4I終端和位置報告設備(PRE:Position Reporting Equipment),小隊級以下的指揮官根本沒有配備相關裝備.B2CS系統的實戰部署後,將通過與ATCIS的互聯互通,實現從軍到小隊的戰場信息可視化共享,為實現各種作戰力量的密切配合和實時協調行動以及指揮控制一體化提供基礎。

ATCIS系統性能改進項目是為現有系統搭建網絡平台,實現ATCIS系統與50個武器系統互動。另外,作為有線網絡的補充和延伸,還將為ATCIS系統構築指揮所無線局域網(LAN),以加強作戰網絡的靈活性。

為了應對戰時作戰指揮權移交,韓軍正在推進AKJCCS系統,MIMS-C系統,JFOS-K系統的研發工作。預計,AKJCCS系統將與CENTRIXS-K系統實現互動,CENTRIXS-K系統將於CENTRIXS- ķ系統實現互動,JFOS-K系統將與美軍的火力系統實現互動。

韓軍的戰場信息管理系統在使用過程中,發現了很多問題。目前,對KJCCS,ATCIS,AFCCS的系統改進工作正在進行,但KNCCS和MIMS卻在這個方面幾乎沒有任何進展。系統性能升級工作主要圍繞與其他系統互聯互通,完善認證系統,增加一些應用功能,多元化系統擴張等方面進行。

從目前的情況看,韓軍C4I系統建設工作主要存在如下問題:

第一,在戰場管理信息系統建設需求評估階段,提出的概念性的作戰性能要求(ROC,Required Operational Capability)被直接反映到概念研究階段,進而貫穿系統研發的整個過程。這樣,ROC只是根據研發人員的判斷做出的,與部隊的水平,類型,實際情況脫節,結合的不夠緊密。其結果戰場管理系統是單一化的,不能向作戰單位有針對性地提供所需情報,導致用戶通常只使用其中的部分功能。

為了解決這些問題,首先ROC應在研發人員和用戶的共同參與下完成。這樣就能充分反映用戶的需求,使系統更便於實際操作使用。用戶界面,使用功能也應該進行個性化配置,根據部隊不同的崗位,職責設定相應的功能,建設一批具有不同功能,既可隨機組合,效能聚合,又能自主適應,一體行動的節點,為作戰體系提供強大的基礎支撐。

第二,在戰場管理信息系統建設的具體推進階段,從通信網到應用系統建設都走了“煙囪式發展”的老路,導致彼此之間“煙囪林立”,互不相通,極大地限制了軍隊綜合作戰能力的提升。雖然韓國防部下發了一些規定和指針,要求從體系開發到系統建設都要遵循相關的技術標準,但是實際情況是這些規定並未能得到具體落實。其結果韓軍戰場管理系統信息間互聯互通不暢,三軍C4I系統-ATCIS,KNCCS,AFCCS和軍事信息系統MIMS只能通過KJCCS進行間接聯動。

在2009年和2010年的“關鍵決心/鷂鷹”聯合演習中通用作戰圖(COP:Common Operational Picture)出現問題,未能準確,實時地更新和完善戰場綜合感知情報信息。2011年監察院的審查結果也證實了這一內容。具體的錯誤內容為部隊位置,部隊數量,兵力規模,主要裝備情報等,其原因主要是編碼管理,系統互動,數據庫(DB)管理,信息輸入等方面出現嚴重漏洞。

為了解決這些問題,不但要引進類似美軍正在使用的指揮與控制個人計算機(C2PC)等為基礎的系統,還要實現COP數據標準化。通用作戰圖(COP)中的通用並非意味著信息系統中的所有用戶都在觀看同一畫面,通用實際上是指所有用戶在共享同樣的數據來源(數據源)。即,參聯會與三軍部隊共享著真正的標準化通用作戰圖數據,每個用戶看到的是自己所需的同一數據來源提供的不同的展示畫面。

第三,戰場管理信息系統的核心 – 應用系統雖然具備部隊執行任務所需的必備功能,但是目前只是實現了業務及功能的自動化而已,並不能實現各級指揮與控制的有機融合另外。 ,應用系統的功能開發缺乏頂層設計和系統規劃,缺乏溝通與協作,客觀造成系統間互聯互通水平低,無法滿足用戶的實際需求。從目前來看,很難向指揮官及作戰參謀提供資源優化配置方案和強有力的決策支持。

信息系統只是實現了自動化,意味著在系統開發過程中沒有進行業務流程分析(BPA:業務流程分析),沒有形成合理,科學的業務流程。可以說,系統開發中,最為重要的環節之一是業務流程分析(BPA)。在進行具體開發時,首先應進行當前業務流程狀況分析(AS-IS)。一旦發現問題或需要改進的方面,就要重新設計成用戶期望的(待)或優化了的流程類型。這樣,在分析現有業務流程的基礎上進行業務流程重組(BPR),可以產生新的更為合理的業務流程。

系統功能開發並非只包括軟件開發這一項。信息系統的研發人員通常認為,軟件開發是系統功能開發的全部內容,數據只是系統在運行過程中傳遞的內容而已。而事實上,軟件的目的是為了處理數據,並不是獨立存在著也就是說,在業務流程過程中,系統與數據應並行推進;在系統開發過程中,數據應被處理成用戶所需的形態這意味著業務流程建模(BPM:Business Process Modeling)和數據建模(DM:Data Modeling),業務標準化和數據標準化應同時進行。

第四,對於武器系統而言,開發完畢後,若發現需要改進的地方時,綜合所有問題後再進行性能改進工作,也不會有太多的問題。但是對於信息系統而言,即便功能非常完善,若特定用戶提出新的功能需求時,不能及時更新,及時改進,那麼就會直接影響到系統的實際使用。如果不能靈活可靠地滿足業務需求和性能需求,那麼信息系統就很難在提高作戰效能方面發揮作用。

建立起完善的信息系統優化維護體系,在系統的運營過程中,及時反映業務需求/性能需求等方面非常重要。這比直接推進性能改進項目更為簡單有效。所以,有必要指定系統研發機關負責系統整個生命週期內的優化升級工作。為此,投入相應的預算也是非常必要的。

三,韓美聯合信息系統建設情況

CENTRIXS-K系統和PASS-K系統是美軍為了與韓軍C4I系統和軍事信息系統實現信息共享而設計和使用的。特別值得一提的是,CENTRIXS-K系統是目前韓美聯合司令部主導下的韓美聯合作戰指揮控制系統。

戰時作戰指揮權移交後,戰時作戰指揮權將由現在的韓美聯合司令部主導,變成韓軍主導,美軍支援的新模式。這意味著指揮機構由現在的韓美聯合司令部單一體制變成韓軍,駐韓美軍兩個指揮體制。目前,韓美雙方正考慮韓美聯合司令部解體,韓參聯會機構改編,設立美國韓國司令部(US KORCOM)的方案。屆時,韓參聯會主席將負責指揮韓國軍隊,美國韓國司令部(駐韓美軍司令)將負責指揮美軍所轄部隊。另外,韓美還將新設合作機構,其中同盟軍事合作本部將協助軍事委員會(MC)進行戰略層面的合作;戰區級合作機構將負責韓參聯會與美國韓國司令部間的具體合作事項;作戰司令部級合作機構將負責韓美作戰司令部級部隊間的具體合作事項。

面對這種組織結構變化,韓軍有必要加強韓國主導指揮控制及韓美合作機制所需的系統建設。為此,韓參聯正在開發AKJCCS系統和MIMS-C系統。預計,AKJCCS系統和MIMS -C系統將作為韓美兩國間戰區級信息流通,聯合作戰指揮控制,聯合作戰功能支援,軍事合作機構合作手段等來使用。其結果,就將會給韓美聯合信息系統中的指揮控制系統,支援系統帶來變化即,韓軍通過KJCCS系統,美軍通過CENTRIXS-K系統對各自的作戰力量進行指揮控制;韓軍的參聯會及韓軍各作戰司令部通過KJCCS系統使用AKJCCS系統的主要功能,美國韓國司令部及美軍各作戰司令部通過CENTRIXS-K系統使用AKJCCS系統主要功能。

2015年,戰時作戰指揮權移交後,韓軍的戰場管理信息系統和美軍的C4I系統將實現相當水平的互聯,互通,互操作韓軍的戰場管理將通過KJCCS系統及三軍C4I系統 – ATCIS系統,KNCCS系統,AFCCS系統來實施,韓美聯合作戰將通過CENTRIXS-K系統和AKJCCS系統來實施。韓美空軍/海軍作戰部隊間將保持現有系統互動機制,另外韓美陸軍/海軍陸戰隊作戰部隊間系統不互通的狀態將會繼續持續下去。

MIMS-C系統目前正處於研發階段,MIMS系統只作為韓軍自己的軍事信息系統來使用。

從聯合作戰的角度來看,AKJCCS系統在與CENTRIXS-K的互聯互通中,盡可能多地發揮作用非常重要.CENTRIXS-K系統運行數據都是由各種下層系統提供的,但是AKJCCS系統卻不具備這樣的下層系統應用支援體系,因此CENTRIXS-K系統的部分功能很難在AKJCCS系統上運行。這些功能主要有危機處置標準操作程序(CASOP:危機行動標準操作程序),綜合決策支持框架(IDSF) :綜合決策支持框架),指揮官重要信息需求(CCIR:指揮官的關鍵信息要求),5X8卡,主要狀況(SIGEVENT:重大事件)等。預計戰時作戰指揮權移交後,AKJCCS系統將能夠通過網絡鏈結的方式從CENTRIXS-K系統獲取上述功能所提供的信息。

CENTRIXS-K系統的下層系統由參聯的C4I-全球指揮控制系統(GCCS:全球指揮控制系統),美地面部隊戰術C4I系統 – 陸軍作戰指揮系統(ABCS:陸軍作戰指揮控制系統)的機動控制系統(MCS:機動控制系統),高級野戰砲兵戰術數據系統(AFATDS:AdvancedField Artillery Tactical Data System),防空和導彈防禦工作站(AMDWS:Air&Missile Defense Workstation),全信源分析系統(ASAS) ,美海軍戰術C4I系統(CENTRIXS-M),美空軍戰術C4I系統(ACC-COIN:空中部隊司令部 – 興趣網絡),防空系統(ADSI:防空系統集成商),全球廣播服務(GBS:Global廣播服務),聯合監視目標攻擊雷達系統(JSTARS:聯合監視和目標攻擊雷達系統),聯合報警與報告網絡(聯合警報和報告網絡),聯合氣象影響系統(聯合天氣影響系統),戰區作戰管理中心系統(Theatre Battle Management Core Sy ():戰區彈道導彈預警(TBMW:Theatre Ballistic Missile Warning)等.CENTRIXS-K系統能夠和如此多的系統實現有效互聯,互通,互操作,所以指揮控制,信息共享,合作協調,業務支援等功能十分優異,運行非常流暢,不存在任何問題和障礙。但是韓軍的AKJCCS系統只能從KJCCS系統獲取有限的資料,所以在功能上有很大的局限性。因此,韓軍也有必要建設AKJCCS系統的下層系統,以保證AKJCCS系統安全高效,穩定運行。

四,韓軍及韓美聯合信息系統建設趨勢

從韓軍單獨作戰的角度來看,提高戰場管理系統體系戰鬥力,必須具備任務所需的必要性能。

首先,需實現韓美戰術級C4I系統的互動,保證韓美戰術部隊間的信息共享與協作即實現韓美地面部隊間 – 韓軍ATCIS系統與美軍ABCS系統,韓美海軍間 – 韓軍KNTDS系統與美軍CENTRIXS-M系統,韓美空軍間 – 韓軍AFCCS系統與美空軍戰術C4I系統(ACC-COIN),韓美海軍陸戰隊間 – 韓軍ATCIS系統與美海軍陸戰隊系統實時或近實時系統互動,信息共享是非常重要的。

其次,應改變目前以KJCCS系統為中心的三軍戰術系統–ATICS系統,KNCCS系統,AFCCS系統的互動模式,這種模式已限制了作戰效能的提升。如三軍戰術系統間直接互聯互通,將能夠有效提高部隊快速反應能力,快速機動能力及協同作戰能力。此外,解決三軍戰術C4I系統間傳輸遲延,數據丟失,數據不一致現象也是非常重要的。

另外,還應積極主動地完成頂層設計,系統集成,持續推進戰術信息通信系統(TICN:戰術信息通信網絡),衛星通信網等基礎通信網絡建設,加快建立統一完善的信息平台及綜合信息網絡。

綜上所述,韓軍C4I系統的發展方向可以概括為以下四點:

第一,C4I系統的作戰性能要求(ROC)應在研發人員和用戶的共同參與下完成,系統用戶界面和使用功能應進行個性化配置,為態勢感知,指揮控制,決策支持等提供強大的基礎支撐。

第二,參聯會與三軍間實現數據標準化,共享統一的數據來源(數據源)和數據標準化通​​用作戰圖。

第三,C4I系統的應用系統實現互聯,互通,互操作,數據檢索和故障排除都可以在同一畫面中進行。另外,為了形成合理,科學的業務流程,要進行業務流程分析(BPA),業務流程建模(BPM:Business Process Modeling)和數據建模(DM:Data Modeling)。

第四,及時反映用戶業務需求,性能需求及改進要求,建立完善信息系統的優化維護體系。

另外,韓美C4I系統的發展方向可以概括為以下兩點:

第一,借鑒CENTRIXS-K系統的做法,建設AKJCCS系統的下層系統,保證系統高效,穩定運行。

第二,實現韓美戰術級C4I系統的互動,保證韓美戰術部隊間的信息共享與協作。知遠/珠峰

Original Referring url:

 

Chinese Military Review: From Army Information Construction to Construction of Information Army // 中國軍事評論:從軍隊信息建設到建設信息化軍隊

Chinese Military Review: From Army Information Construction to Construction of Information Army //

中國軍事評論:從軍隊信息建設到建設信息化軍隊

2006年04月20日 22:00

From the Army Information Construction to the Construction of Informatized Army——Opening the Eyes to See the New Military Revolution in the World

  Li Bingyan

  A few years ago, there was a curtain factory abroad that was on the verge of bankruptcy and turned to the consulting company. The consulting company only asked them to change the curtain factory to a shading technology factory, and the factory would survive.

  A name change has broadened the horizon of development; a concept change has opened up the mind shackles. Updating the concept is inseparable from the concept of renewal. In the new military revolution, we need to adopt new concepts in a timely manner to show new development ideas.

  Although the ongoing new military revolution still does not see the other side, it is clear that the change has entered a new stage.

  This new military revolution was triggered by a new technological revolution centered on information technology. In the 1990s, the revolutionary impact of information technology on the military mainly remained at the stage of “construction”, that is, information technology embedding, networking, networking, and integration within the framework of the mechanized military organization. Technology strengthens mechanization and enhances mechanization. The theoretical community often refers to this stage of change as a revolution in the military field, which is to promote the army.

Information construction. At that time, the digital division and the digital army to be built by the US Army were carried out within the structure of the original mechanized army. Later, the US military learned from the experience of informatization of some large enterprises and multinational corporations in the society and changed the way of thinking.

  In the past, military changes were first to change military technology, weapons and equipment, and finally to complete the transformation of the military organizational system to adapt to the new methods of warfare. The new military revolution, characterized by informatization, especially the post-launch army, should be reversed. The experience of the business community is also “first rationalization of organizational structure, re-automation, informationization.”

  Before the 1990s, the US business community carried out informatization construction, focusing only on improving work efficiency. Although effective, it still cannot be changed. Ford Motor Company has spent a lot of money on automation, and its office efficiency has improved significantly. For example, the financial department of the North American branch has reduced the number of employees from 500 to 400 after office automation. The company leaders think it is good. Later, they learned about Japan.

Mazda Motor Company did the same job and used only five people. In contrast, Ford’s leadership was shocked. After in-depth investigation, they found that Mazda started to adjust the organizational structure, first change the workflow, and then engage in office automation. Ford’s financial system, organizational structure or traditional model has caused a lot of useless work. Later, Ford Company optimized its structure, re-engineered its business processes, and started office automation on this basis. The company’s financial staff was compressed to a quarter.

  In the development of human society, there is a phenomenon of “path dependence”. After a social system is formed, it will continue to strengthen itself in the actual operation, so that people will not be able to get rid of the influence of the original ideas afterwards.

  In addition, the organizational structure does not change, it is difficult to make the right decision in information. Usually, people are standing in their own units and planning work in this department, forming a “professional syndrome.” The research informatization is first of all the informationization of the unit, beyond the scope of construction of the unit, the leadership vision will not be achieved. This has led to the emergence of new “isomorphic diseases” – large and complete, small and complete, you have me, can not be interconnected, interoperable, interoperable. In this regard, some people call it the “potato effect”: a sack of potatoes, all sprouting, each self-contained system, self-enclosed, and not connected. Building these systems may be reasonable from a local perspective, but it may not be scientific or irrational from the overall perspective of informatization.

  In the practice, the foreign military realized that if informationization is not detoured, it should start with rationalizing the system and adjusting the command system. Otherwise, all levels and departments are busy with informationization. It is likely that the faster and the more the action is now, the greater the losses will be caused once reworked in the future.

  The rationalization of the organizational structure, the consideration of informationization, or the rationalization of organizational structure and informationization, and the simultaneous development have become a new consensus on the new military revolution. After entering the 21st century, the US military proposed a military transformation, marking a new stage in military transformation. At this stage, information technology has shifted from a “construction” role to a “deconstruction” role. That is: instead of strengthening mechanization, it is reorganizing mechanization. As a result, the army’s informatization construction has turned to the construction of an information-based army; the changes in the military field have turned to real military changes.

  In the theoretical preparation stage of the US military, the future army that was designed was: the sensor army, the precision strike army, the dominant mobile army, and the logistics army. In the transition, after a new argument, the future goals of the US military reorganization are proposed: the full-dimensional battlefield perception army, the precision firepower strike army, the efficient command and control army, and the intelligent logistics support army.

  In 2005, Germany proposed the idea of ​​building a “new three armed forces”, namely: rapid reaction forces, standing combat troops, and logistics support forces.

  At the end of last year, the Russian General Staff Department completed the reform of the armed forces. The Russian military’s new round of structural reforms eliminated the arms, military regions and fleets and re-established three functional headquarters and three regional headquarters. The three functional commands are: Strategic Nuclear Power Command, Transportation Command, and Aerospace Defense Command. The three regional commands are: Western European Command, Central Asian Command and Far East Command.

  Generally speaking, although the structural changes of the military have their own characteristics, the common point is that they tend to be integrated and tend to be integrated, and the boundaries between the traditional arms and services are increasingly blurred. The informationized army is not just a technology, but a new structure that is linked to new technologies – ultimately, a structural decision function.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

從軍隊信息建設到建設信息化軍隊——放開眼界看世界新軍事變革

李炳彥

幾年前,國外有一家窗簾廠,瀕臨倒閉之際,求助於諮詢公司。諮詢公司只讓他們把窗簾廠改為遮光技術廠,這個廠子便活了起來。

一個名字改變,拓寬了發展視野;一個概念更換,撬開了心智枷鎖。更新觀念,離不開更新概念。在新軍事變革中,我們需要適時採用新的概念,來展現新的發展思路。

持續發生的新軍事變革雖然至今仍看不到彼岸,但清晰可見變革已經進入到一個新階段。

這場新軍事變革,是由以信息技術為核心的新技術革命引發的。上個世紀90年代,信息技術對軍隊的革命性影響,主要還停留於“建構”階段,即在機械化軍隊的組織結構框架內進行信息技術嵌入、建網、聯網、集成,實際上是用信息技術加強機械化、提昇機械化。理論界常把這一階段的變革,稱之為軍事領域裡的變革,是推動軍隊

信息化建設。當時,美陸軍要建設的數字化師、數字化軍,都是在原來機械化軍隊的結構內進行的。後來,美軍汲取社會上一些大企業、跨國公司進行信息化的經驗,改變了變革的思路。
以往的軍事變革,都是先變革軍事技術、武器裝備,最後完成軍事組織體制的變革,以適應新的作戰方式。而信息化為標誌的新軍事變革,特別是後發之軍,應當反過來進行。企業界的經驗也是“先組織結構合理化,再自動化、信息化”。

上個世紀90年代以前,美國企業界進行信息化建設,只著眼於提高工作效率,雖有成效,但還談不上變革。美福特汽車公司,曾花大筆金錢搞自動化,辦公效率明顯提高,如北美分公司的財務部,實現辦公自動化後,人員由原來的500人減少到400人,公司領導自認為不錯。後來,他們得知日本

馬自達汽車公司做同樣的工作,一共只用了5個人。兩者相對照,福特公司的領導大吃一驚。他們深入調查後發現,馬自達公司從調整組織結構入手,先改變工作流程,再搞辦公自動化。福特公司的財務制度、組織結構還是傳統模式,造成許多無用功。後來,福特公司經過優化結構,再造業務流程,在此基礎上搞辦公自動化,公司財務員工壓縮到了原來的四分之一。
人類社會在發展中,存在一種“路徑依賴”現象,即一個社會系統形成後,必將在實際運作中不斷自我強化,以致後來人們改進它的種種嘗試,都難以擺脫原有思路的影響。

另外,組織結構不改變,很難做出信息化的正確決策。通常,人們都是站在本單位、本部門謀劃工作,形成了一種“職業官能症”。研究信息化首先是本單位的信息化,超出本單位的建設範圍,領導視野就達不到了。致使出現新的“同構病”——大而全、小而全,你有我也有,不能互聯、互通、互操作。對此,有人稱之為“馬鈴薯效應”:一麻袋馬鈴薯,個個都發芽,個個自成小系統,自我封閉,互不相聯。建這些系統,從局部來看可能合理,但從信息化的全局看可能並不科學、不合理。

外軍在實踐中認識到:要想信息化不走彎路,還應從理順編制體制、調整指揮體系入手。否則,各級、各部門都忙著信息化,很可能現在動作愈快、投入愈多,將來一旦返工,造成的損失就愈大。

先組織結構合理化,在信息化,或者組織結構合理化與信息化一併考慮,同時進行,成了新軍事變革的一種新共識。進入21世紀後,美軍提出軍隊轉型,標誌著軍事變革進入了一個新階段。在這個階段,信息技術從“建構”作用,轉向“解構”作用。即:不是加強機械化,而是重組機械化。由此,軍隊信息化建設,轉向了建設信息化軍隊;軍事領域裡的變革,轉向真正的軍事變革。

美軍在理論準備階段,曾設計出的未來軍隊是:傳感器軍,精確打擊軍,主導機動軍,聚焦後勤軍。在轉型中,經過新的論證,提出美軍重組的未來目標:全維戰場感知軍,精確火力打擊軍,高效指揮控制軍,智能後勤保障軍。

德國於2005年,提出了建設“新三軍”設想,即:快速反應部隊,常備作戰部隊,後勤支援部隊。

去年底,俄軍總參謀部完成了關於武裝力量改革方案。俄軍新一輪結構改革方案,取消了軍兵種、軍區和艦隊,重新成立三個職能司令部和三個地區司令部。三個職能司令部是:戰略核力量司令部、運輸司令部、空天防禦司令部。三個地區司令部是:西歐司令部、中亞司令部和遠東司令部。

從總體上看,軍隊結構變革雖然各國都有自己的特色,但共同點是趨於綜合、趨於一體化,傳統的軍兵種之間的界限日益模糊。信息化軍隊不只是技術,重要的是與新技術相聯繫的新的結構方式——最終還是結構決定功能。

Original Referring url: http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2006-04-20/

People’s Liberation Army must be brave enough to take responsibility for China’s “Cyberspace” Sovereignty // 人民解放軍必須勇敢地對中國的“網絡空間”主權負責

People’s Liberation Army must be brave enough to take responsibility for China’s “Cyberspace” Sovereignty //

人民解放軍必須勇敢地對中國的“網絡空間”主權負責

Original: “National Defense Reference”, No. 3, 2017

作者:安卫平 北部战区副参谋长

  The cyberspace was born in the military field. For example, the first computer, the APA network and the GPS navigation system all originated from the military. Today, cyberspace security has been closely related to national security, and the military has once again become the protagonist of maintaining national cyberspace security. Whether it is facing normalized network penetration or large-scale cyberattacks, it is urgent for the military to move from defending the “network camp gate” to guarding the “network country gate”, breaking through the traditional military mission and mission, breaking through the traditional war preparation mode. With a new network of national defense thinking, the founding of the network era of the country’s strong shield.

  From the “network camp door” to the “network country door”, the new era brings a new trend of military mission

  Cyberspace is not only related to the maintenance of national strategic interests, but also directly affects political, economic, cultural security and social development. It has also become the blood and link of modern battlefield joint operations. The Chinese military cannot be limited to maintaining the internal network security of the military camp. It must also actively adapt to the trend of the times and take the responsibility of the country that guards the “network country.” The strong army of the Internet is an important part of the construction of a network power. From the “network camp door” to the “network country door” is the inevitable trend of the development of the domestic and international situation in the information age.

  Guarding the “network country door” is forced by the cyberspace security situation. As the first major Internet country, China’s security situation is not optimistic, and strategic opponents have never stopped preparing for our network operations. The United States, Britain, France and other countries are actively preparing for cyberspace, giving military functions through cyberspace security legislation, developing cyber warfare forces, developing cyber warfare weapons and equipment, and advancing war to the “fifth space” of mankind, especially in China. In the historical process of the rise, the Western countries used the means of network technology and communication to implement uninterrupted harassment, subversion and cyberattacks under the leadership of the Cold War mentality and the containment subversion strategy, which seriously affected the security and social development of our country. China gradually became National security is at great risk for the hardest hit by cybersecurity threats, the test sites for virus attacks, and the destination of conscious penetration.

  In the coming period, as a new emerging country, China’s conflicts of interest with other parties will intensify. Strengthening the network defense strategy and strengthening the operational readiness of cyberspace are the inevitable ways to actively strive for the dominance and discourse power of cyberspace, and also the rise of China. The only way to go. As the main force of national security and stability, the military must adapt to the characteristics of cyberspace and become the backbone and main force to resist network intrusion and network subversion, and safeguard national security and social stability.

  Winning cyber warfare is the trend of new military revolution in the information age. As one of the most advanced productivity in the information age, network technology has made cyberspace warfare a dominant factor guiding the evolution of modern warfare and affecting the overall situation of war. In recent years, from the “seismic net” attack in Iran, the cyber warfare in the Russian-Georgian conflict, the large-scale obstruction of the Ukrainian power grid , and the cyberattack of the US military against IS, the huge role played by cyberspace in actual combat has gradually emerged, indicating that cyber warfare Has become an important style of future joint operations.

  The US military attaches great importance to the construction of cyberspace armaments, the establishment of the Cyberspace Command, the launch of cyberspace joint warfare, the extensive expansion of cyber warfare forces, the maintenance of its cyberspace hegemony, and the formation of cyberspace control capabilities as a “third offset strategy”. “Absolute advantage is the most important competitive content.

  Many countries in the world have followed suit, and the trend of militarization of cyberspace is obvious. The rigorous cyberspace military struggle situation requires the Chinese military to focus on the changes in the network battlefield space, adapt to the requirements of the information war era, and achieve the strong military goal of smashing and winning in cyberspace.

  Effective network warfare is an inherent need to accelerate the construction of a network powerhouse. In the process of China’s development from a network power to a network power, it is inseparable from the strong cyberspace military power as a guarantee. The international competition in cyberspace is a comprehensive game of the country’s comprehensive strength. Among them, the quality of network military capacity building is directly related to national security and stability, and it is the core element of the entire national security field.

  At present, the interests of countries in the world in the cyberspace are mutually infiltrated, and there is a situation in which you have me, I have you, cooperate with each other, and develop together. However, this kind of common development is not equal. The US and Western powers have taken advantage of the cyberspace dominance, and have already achieved certain network warfare advantages, which has made my network development and interests subject to people. How the military can fulfill its mission of defending the earth in the construction of a network-strength country, the premise is to form a network environment capable of curbing the crisis, controlling the opponent’s network attack and defense capabilities, and ensuring peaceful development.

  Therefore, the military needs to establish a deterrent strategic goal of effective warfare, form a strategic check and balance ability that can “destroy each other” with the enemy, thereby enhancing strategic competitiveness, ending cyberspace aggression, and ensuring the smooth advancement of the network power strategy.

  From “keeping the soil and being responsible” to “protecting the net and defending the country”, the new situation requires the military to undertake new tasks.

  The military is the main force and pillar of national security, and cyberspace is no exception. The National Security Law, which was enacted on July 1, 2015, stipulates: ” Citizens of the People’s Republic of China , all state organs and armed forces, political parties and people’s organizations, enterprises and institutions, and other social organizations have the responsibility to safeguard national security. And obligations.” The Cybersecurity Law, promulgated in November 2016, emphasizes the need to maintain cyberspace sovereignty and national security.

  On the basis of the laws of these two countries, on December 27, 2016, the “National Cyberspace Security Strategy” (hereinafter referred to as “Strategy”) was officially launched, providing overall guidance for creating a new pattern of network powers at a new starting point. Basically follow, clearly put forward nine strategic tasks, further embodying the mission of the military in the process of building a network power.

  With the national mission of protecting the network, the military must be a strong pillar to defend the cyberspace sovereignty. The first of the nine strategic tasks listed in the “Strategy” is “firmly defending the cyberspace sovereignty” and clearly proposes to “take all measures including economic, administrative, scientific, technological, legal, diplomatic, military, etc., and unswervingly maintain our network.” Space sovereignty.” It can be seen that the military must assume the military mission of using physical space and defend the national mission of the sovereign security and interests of virtual cyberspace.

  Cyberspace sovereignty is the core interest of the state and an important component of national sovereignty. It indicates the independence, equal, self-defense and management rights of the state in cyberspace. A once hostile forces violated my cyberspace sovereignty is tantamount to a violation of national sovereignty physical space of my land, sea and so on, China will have the right to take all measures, including military means, including giving resolutely fight back.

  Internationally, the United States has long proposed a cyberspace deterrence strategy, declaring that attacks on US network information facilities are equivalent to war acts, and the United States will take military strikes to retaliate. Military means is a means of safeguarding national sovereignty and plays a vital role in safeguarding national cyberspace security. Therefore, the military, air, sea and air military forces have been given the historical mission of protecting the cyberspace sovereignty. They must rely on the powerful physical space to defend the national interests of cyberspace and effectively deter the hostile forces from cyber-damaging attempts.

  In accordance with the era of the Internet, the military must be the ballast stone to defend national security. The second item of the “Strategy” mission emphasizes the need to resolutely safeguard national security, prevent, deter and punish any use of the Internet for treason, secession, sedition, subversion or incitement to subvert the people’s democratic dictatorship.

  In the era of information network, the military of all countries in the world has become an important participant in cyberspace. The level of cyberspace capability has become the main indicator for assessing the modernization of a country’s military. It is one of the main duties of the informationized military to carry out cyberspace missions and maintain national security.

  Judging from the historical process of China’s development, it is necessary to be highly vigilant against the danger of the country being invaded, subverted, and divided in cyberspace in order to adapt to the national security strategy needs of building a well-off society in an all-round way. Highly alert to the reform caused by cyberspace. The danger of developing the overall situation is destroyed, and we are highly wary of the danger of interference and destruction in the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

  Preventing problems before they occur requires the state to have the means to cope with and deal with these dangers, and to have the powerful force to prevent, stop and legally punish cyberspace violations. Defending the country has always been an unshirkable historical responsibility of the military. The inherent mission and mission have determined that the Chinese military must assume the role of taking various measures in the cyberspace to safeguard the country’s political, economic, cultural security and social stability.

  The strategic mission of both offensive and defensive, the military must be a strong backing to enhance the ability of cyberspace protection. The third and eighth items of the Nine Major Tasks in the Strategy clearly state that all necessary measures must be taken to protect critical information infrastructure and its important data from attack and destruction, and that technology and management should be adhered to, protected and shocked; We will build a network space protection force that is commensurate with China’s international status and compatible with the network powers. We will vigorously develop network security defense methods, timely discover and resist network intrusion, and build a strong backing for national security. Among all the political, diplomatic, military, and scientific and technological capabilities of the country to maintain security, military power has always been the foundation and support for all capabilities, the fundamental guarantee for all capabilities, and the ultimate support for national security.

  Therefore, the military must undertake the strategic task of strengthening the national cyberspace protection capability. In the real society, the military is the reassurance of safeguarding national security. In the cyberspace, it should also become the security dependence and guarantee of the people. As an important part of the national cyberspace protection capability, the military must achieve both offensive and defensive capabilities, and the ability to resolutely safeguard the interests and security of the country and the people in cyberspace, and effectively eliminate the various crises caused by cybersecurity threats. The turbulence of thoughts enables the people to truly feel that production and life are effectively protected and become the confidence of the people of the whole country in their confidence in the national network protection capabilities.

  The global responsibility of UNPROFOR, the military must be an important support for maintaining global cybersecurity. The last item of the “Strategy” mission clearly proposes to strengthen international cooperation in cyberspace, support the United Nations in playing a leading role, promote the development of universally accepted international rules on cyberspace, international anti-terrorism conventions on cyberspace, and improve the judicial assistance mechanism for combating cybercrime, deepening International cooperation in the areas of policy law, technological innovation, standardization, emergency response, and protection of key information infrastructure.

  Cyber ​​terrorism and cybercrime are new forms of global threat catalyzed by information network fermentation. They pose a huge threat to the political, economic, military and cultural security of all countries in the world. It is not enough to rely solely on the power of the government and the people. Western countries have given the military the responsibility to protect cybersecurity and the power to fight cyber terrorism. Maintaining the security and stability of global cyberspace is in the fundamental interests of China and the rest of the world. The military should become an important defender of global cyberspace security and an important force in combating global cyber terrorism and cybercrime.

  The globalization and unbounded nature of the Internet determine the international demand for combating cyber terrorism and transnational cybercrime. The military should promote military cooperation between countries in the framework of the UN Security Council and use the strategies and technologies of the Internet era to establish joint defense and joint defense. Mechanism to effectively safeguard the security of the national and world cyberspace.

  From “field training” to “network preparation”, new areas require new preparations for the military

  Under the new historical situation, cyberspace puts forward new requirements for the military training and preparation mode. It should adapt to the new characteristics of cyberspace and the new mission of the military to carry out innovative reforms on the traditional model, strengthen the country’s military objectives, and strengthen macro-coordination. Focusing on the legal needs of cyberspace military operations, it closely follows the natural attributes of cyberspace “military and civilian integration”, builds a network security attack and defense system that combines peacetime and warfare, and builds a network defense force of “military and land use”.

  Legislation empowerment provides a legal basis for the military to carry out its functional mission. The countries of the world, especially the western developed countries, attach great importance to the issue of network defense in cyber security legislation. The United States has successively issued a series of policies and regulations such as “National Security No. 16 Presidential Decree”, “Network Space Action Strategy”, and has continuously deepened and standardized on how to protect national network security in the field of network defense.

  At present, it is necessary to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the cyberspace military from the legal level. It should be based on the National Security Law and the Cyber ​​Security Law, and introduce the network defense law and related cyberspace military operational regulations, for the construction of the network defense field and military. The action provides regulatory support and a program of action to make the military’s responsibilities and mission in cyberspace more specific and specific.

  First, further define the network sovereignty and network frontier through the network defense legislation, and clearly define the scope of the military.

  The second is to establish the operational authority of the military to defend the national cyberspace security through the construction of cyber warfare laws and regulations, and to distinguish military means against network intrusion and network destruction. Third, through the cyberspace international cooperation policy, the military will coordinate with other countries and civilian forces to combat international cyber terrorism and cybercrime.

  The integration of military and civilian provides an innovative driving force for the construction of a network powerhouse. The integration of military and civilian is the main method for the world power to enhance the competitiveness of cyberspace. For the construction of China’s network powerhouse, building a military-civilian network security attack and defense system and developing a military-land dual-use defense information infrastructure is to inspire the innovation of military cyberspace combat capability. Source.

  The first is to coordinate the military, civilian, and functional departments of the state, the military, and various levels of government, set up special command and coordination agencies, mobilize all national network forces, and build a network security attack and defense system that combines “military and civilian integration” and “peace and war.”

  The second is to issue guidance on the in-depth development of cyber security military-civilian integration as soon as possible, and gradually carry out basic legal research and demonstration of military-civilian integration to guide the development of medium- and long-term military-civil integration.

  Third, relying on the country’s existing public mobile communication network, optical fiber communication network and satellite system, the military and civilians will build an information infrastructure covering the entire army of the whole country, and realize the unified construction and sharing of military and civilian.

  The fourth is to establish an emergency response mechanism for military-civilian joints, increase the ability to train military authorities to control events, strengthen experts and emergency professional strength, and enhance the ability to quickly recover damaged networks or information systems.

  Military-civilian joint training provides a practical environment for the generation of cyberspace military capabilities. The military-civilian sharing characteristics of cyberspace make military-civilian joint training an important means of military training in cyberspace around the world. The cyberspace joint military and civilian exercises in the United States and NATO countries have formed a series of series. The “Network Storm” and “Network Guardian” drills have attracted the participation of governments, enterprises, research institutions and even civilian hackers. Our military cyberspace military strength training also needs to attract a wide range of civil forces to participate.

  First, do a good job in military-government cooperation, establish a military-civilian joint offensive and defensive drill mechanism, learn from the red-blue confrontation training methods in the cyber war drills of developed countries such as the United States, actively build a “national network shooting range”, plan a series of joint exercises of the government and non-government organizations, and enhance the integration of the military and the people. The level of attack and defense of the network of the government and the people.

  The second is to do a good job in military-enterprise cooperation, relying on net-based enterprises to set up a training field on the Internet, to promote the ability of attack and defense between the military and civilians, and jointly improve the ability to prevent unknown risks.

  The third is to organize private network security companies and hacker talents, carry out network security competitions and other activities, and mutually verify each other to jointly improve the level of network security protection technology and tactics.

  The network reserve service provides a source of strength for building a powerful network army. As a backup supplement to the national defense force, the reserve has both military and civilian characteristics and is a powerful measure to realize the organic unification of the development of cyberspace economy and national defense.

  First, it is led by the national security department, and overall planning is carried out according to national interests. A series of laws and regulations conducive to the construction of the network national defense reserve are introduced, and the main division of labor, promotion strategy, interest coordination, etc. of the military and civilian construction in the network defense reserve construction are solved from the top level. problem.

  The second is to innovate the reserve organization and comprehensive coordination mechanism, and plan to integrate the reserve construction into all levels and fields of national network information development.

  The third is to focus on the reform of the military and local management models. Based on the management mechanisms of the provincial and municipal governments, the military, and local enterprises and institutions, the network will establish a network of national defense reserve personnel to jointly cultivate and use the mechanism, improve the national emergency mobilization mechanism, and establish a national network defense special talent. The database will include the construction of network militia and reserve forces into the scope of mobilization of the people’s armed forces. In normal times, they will be incorporated into the militia emergency detachment for training. In an emergency, they will select the elite personnel to participate in the non-war military operations missions, and will be recruited and used as needed during wartime. To transform the national defense potential into national defense strength. 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

原題:從守衛“網絡營門”走向守衛“網絡國門”

作者:安衛平北部戰區副參長

原載:“國防參考”2017年年第3期

網絡空間誕生於軍事領域,如首台計算機,阿帕網和GPS導航系統等都源於軍方,時至今日,網絡空間安全已與國家安全息息相關,軍隊又再次成為維護國家網絡空間安全的主角,無論是面對常態化的網絡滲透,還是大規模的網絡攻擊,都迫切需要軍隊從守衛“網絡營門”走向守衛“網絡國門”,突破傳統的軍隊使命任務,突破傳統的應戰備戰模式,以全新的網絡國防思維,鑄造網絡時代國之堅盾。

從“網絡營門”到“網絡國門”,新時代帶來軍隊使命新趨勢

網絡空間不僅事關國家戰略利益維護,直接影響政治,經濟,文化安全和社會發展,也成為現代戰場聯合作戰的血脈和紐帶。中國軍隊不能局限於維護軍營內部網絡安全,更要主動適應時代趨勢,勇於承擔把守“網絡國門”的國家擔當。網絡強軍是網絡強國建設的重要一環,從“網絡營門”走向“網絡國門”是信息時代國內外形勢發展的必然趨勢。

守衛“網絡國門”是網絡空間安全形勢所迫。中國作為第一網絡大國,安全狀況不容樂觀,戰略對手從未停止對我網絡作戰準備。美,英,法等國積極備戰網絡空間,通過網絡空間安全立法賦予軍隊職能,發展網絡戰部隊,研發網絡戰武器裝備,將戰爭推進到了人類的“第五空間”,特別是在中國日益強大崛起的歷史進程中,西方國家在冷戰思維和遏制顛覆戰略的主導下,利用網絡技術手段和傳播方式實施不間斷的騷擾,顛覆和網絡攻擊行動,嚴重影響我國家安全與社會發展,中國逐漸成為網絡安全威脅的重災區,病毒攻擊的試驗場,意識滲透的目的地,國家安全面臨著巨大風險。

未來一段時期內,中國作為新興大國,與各方利益衝突還將加劇,堅定推進網絡國防戰略,加強網絡空間的作戰準備,是積極爭取網絡空間的主導權和話語權的必然途徑,也是中國崛起的必由之路。軍隊作為國家安全穩定的主要力量,必須適應網絡空間特點要求,成為抗擊網絡入侵,網絡顛覆的中堅和主力,維護國家安全和社會穩定。

打贏網絡戰爭是信息時代新軍事變革所趨。網絡技術作為信息時代最先進生產力之一,使得網絡空間作戰成為引導現代戰爭形態演變的主導因素,影響著戰爭全局。近年來,從伊朗“震網“攻擊,俄格衝突網絡戰,烏克蘭電網遭大規模阻癱以及美軍對IS的網絡攻擊,網絡空間在實戰中所展現出的巨大作用逐漸顯現,預示著網絡作戰已成為未來聯合作戰重要樣式。

美軍高度重視網絡空間軍備建設,成立網絡空間司令部,推出網絡空間聯合作戰條令,大幅度擴編網絡戰部隊,極力維護其在網絡空間霸權,把對網絡空間控制能力作為形成“第三次抵消戰略“絕對優勢最重要的競爭內容。

世界多國紛紛跟進,網絡空間軍事化趨勢明顯。嚴峻的網絡空間軍事鬥爭形勢要求中國軍隊著眼網絡戰場空間變化,適應信息化戰爭時代要求,實現在網絡空間能打仗,打勝仗的強軍目標。

有效網絡懾戰是加速網絡強國建設內在所需。在中國由網絡大國向網絡強國發展過程中,離不開強大的網絡空間軍事力量作為保障。網絡空間國際競爭表現為國家綜合實力的全面博弈,其中,網絡軍事能力建設的好壞,直接關係到國家安全與穩定,牽一發而動全身,是整個國家安全領域的核心要素。

當前,世界各國在網絡空間的利益互相滲透,出現“你中有我,我中有你,互相合作,共同發展”的局面。但是這種共同發展是不對等的,美國及西方強國利用網絡空間主導權,已經取得了一定的網絡懾戰優勢,使我網絡發展及利益受制於人。軍隊如何在網絡強國建設中完成守土有責的使命重托,前提就是要形成能夠遏制危機,懾控對手的網絡攻防能力,確保和平發展的網絡環境。

因此,軍隊需要確立有效懾戰的威懾戰略目標,形成能與敵“相互摧毀”的戰略制衡能力,從而增強戰略競爭力,懾止網絡空間侵略,保障網絡強國戰略順利推進。

從“守土有責”到“護網衛國”,新形勢要求軍隊承擔新任務

軍隊是保衛國家安全的主力和柱石,網絡空間也不例外2015年7月1日施行的“國家安全法”規定:“中華人民共和國公民,一切國家機關和武裝力量,各政黨和各人民團體,企業事業組織和其他社會組織,都有維護國家安全的責任和義務。“2016年11月頒布的”網絡安全法“強調了要維護網絡空間主權和國家安全。

在這兩個國家法律的基礎上,2016年12月27日,“國家網絡空間安全戰略”(下文簡稱“戰略”)正式出台,為在新的起點上開創網絡強國新格局提供了總體指導和基本遵循,明確提出了九大戰略任務,進一步體現了軍隊在建設網絡強國進程中的使命任務。

全力護網的國家使命,軍隊要做捍衛網絡空間主權的堅強柱石。“戰略”中列出的九大戰略任務首項就是“堅定捍衛網絡空間主權”,明確提出要“採取包括經濟,行政,科技,法律,外交,軍事等一切措施,堅定不移地維護我國網絡空間主權“。可見,軍隊須承擔起運用實體空間的軍事手段,保衛虛擬網絡空間主權安全和利益的國家使命。

網絡空間主權是國家的核心利益,是國家主權的重要組成,表明國家在網絡空間所擁有的獨立權,平等權,自衛權和管理權。一旦敵對勢力侵犯了我網絡空間主權,就等同於侵犯了我陸海空等實體空間的國家主權,中國將有權利採取包括軍事手段在內的一切措施給予堅決回擊。

在國際上,美國早就提出網絡空間威懾戰略,宣告對美國網絡信息設施的攻擊等同於戰爭行為,美國會採取軍事打擊措施進行報復。軍事手段是維護國家主權的保底手段,在維護國家網絡空間安全中發揮著至關重要的作用。因此,陸海空天軍事力量理所應當地被賦予了保護網絡空間主權的歷史使命,必須憑藉強大的實體空間武力保衛網絡空間的國家利益,有力震懾敵對勢力的網絡破壞企圖。

依網衛國的時代擔當,軍隊要做保衛國家安全的壓艙石。“戰略”任務的第二項著力強調要堅決維護國家安全,防範,制止和依法懲治任何利用網絡進行叛國,分裂國家,煽動叛亂,顛覆或者煽動顛覆人民民主專政政權的行為。

信息網絡時代,世界各國軍隊都已經成為網絡空間重要參與者,網絡空間能力水平成為評估一個國家軍隊現代化程度的主要指標,遂行網絡空間使命任務,維護國家安全成為信息化軍隊的主要職責之一。

從中國發展所處的歷史進程來看,要適應全面建成小康社會決勝階段的國家安全戰略需求,必須高度警惕國家在網絡空間被侵略,被顛覆,被分裂的危險,高度警惕由網絡空間引發改革發展大局被破壞的危險,高度警惕中國特色社會主義發展進程被干擾,破壞的危險。

防患於未然,要求國家必須具有應對和處置這些危險的手段措施,具有防範,制止和依法懲治網絡空間違法破壞行為的強大力量。保衛國家歷來是軍隊不可推卸的歷史責任,固有的使命任務決定了中國軍隊必須承擔起在網絡空間採取各種措施,維護國家政治,經濟,文化安全和社會穩定的時代擔當。

攻防兼備的戰略任務,軍隊要做提升網絡空間防護能力的堅強後盾。“戰略”中九大任務的第三項和第八項明確提出,要採取一切必要措施保護關鍵信息基礎設施及其重要數據不受攻擊破壞,要堅持技術和管理並重,保護和震懾並舉;要建設與我國國際地位相稱,與網絡強國相適應的網絡空間防護力量,大力發展網絡安全防禦手段,及時發現和抵禦網絡入侵,鑄造維護國家網絡安全的堅強後盾。在國家所有維護安全的政治,外交,軍事,科技能力中,軍事力量歷來是所有能力的基礎和支撐,是所有能力的根本保障,是國家安全的最終依托。

因此,軍隊必須承擔起提升國家網絡空間防護能力堅強後盾的戰略任務。現實社會中,軍隊是維護國家安全的定心丸,在網絡空間也同樣應成為人民群眾的安全依賴和保障。軍隊作為國家網絡空間防護能力生成的重要一環,必須做到攻防兼備,懾戰一體,有能力堅決維護國家和人民在網絡空間的利益和安全,能夠有效消除網絡安全威脅造成的各種危機和思想動盪,使人民能夠切實感受到生產生活得到有效保護,成為全國人民對國家網絡防護能力充滿信心的底氣所在。

聯防聯治的全球責任,軍隊要做維護全球網絡安全的重要支撐。“戰略”任務最後一項明確提出要強化網絡空間國際合作,支持聯合國發揮主導作用,推動制定各方普遍接受的網絡空間國際規則,網絡空間國際反恐公約,健全打擊網絡犯罪司法協助機制,深化在政策法律,技術創新,標準規範,應急響應,關鍵信息基礎設施保護等領域的國際合作。

網絡恐怖主義和網絡犯罪是經過信息網絡發酵催化出的全球威脅新形態,對世界上所有國家的政治,經濟,軍事,文化安全都構成巨大威脅,僅僅依靠政府和民間的力量是不夠的,美國等西方國家紛紛賦予軍隊保護網絡安全的職責和打擊網絡恐怖主義的權限。維護全球網絡空間安全與穩定符合中國以及世界各國的根本利益,軍隊應成為全球網絡空間安全的重要維護者,成為打擊全球網絡恐怖主義和網絡犯罪的重要力量。

網絡的全球化,無界性決定了打擊網絡恐怖主義和跨國網絡犯罪的國際需求,軍隊應在聯合國安理會的框架下,推進國家間網絡治理軍事合作,利用網絡時代的戰略和技術,建立聯防聯治機制,切實維護國家和世界網絡空間安全。

從“沙場練兵”到“網絡備戰”,新領域需要軍隊備戰新舉措

在新的歷史形勢下,網絡空間對軍隊練兵備戰模式提出了全新的要求,應適應網絡空間新特點和軍隊新使命對傳統模式進行創新改革,以強國強軍目標為統攬,加強宏觀統籌,著眼網絡空間軍事行動的法理需求,緊扣網絡空間“軍民一體”的天然屬性,建設“平戰結合”的網絡安全攻防體系,打造“軍地兩用”的網絡國防力量。

立法賦權,為軍隊遂行職能使命提供法理依據。世界各國尤其是西方發達國家在網絡安全立法上高度重視網絡國防問題。美國先後出台了“國家安全第16號總統令”,“網絡空間行動戰略”等一系列政策法規,對如何在網絡國防領域保護國家網絡安全進行了不斷的深化規範。

當前,從法律層面釐清網絡空間軍隊的職責任務非常必要,應以“國家安全法”,“網絡安全法”為依據,出台網絡國防法和有關網絡空間軍事作戰條令法規,為網絡國防領域建設和軍事行動提供法規支撐和行動綱領,使軍隊在網絡空間的職責和使命更加明確具體。

一是通過網絡國防立法進一步界定網絡主權和網絡邊疆,清晰軍隊的職責範圍。

二是通過網絡作戰法規建設,明確軍隊遂行保衛國家網絡空間安全的行動權限,區分應對網絡入侵,網絡破壞等行為的軍事手段。三是通過網絡空間國際合作政策,明確軍隊協同他國,民間力量等打擊國際網絡恐怖主義,網絡犯罪的職能任務。

軍民融合,為網絡強國建設提供創新動力。軍民融合是世界強國提升網絡空間競爭力的主要做法,對於中國網絡強國建設來說,構建軍民融合網絡安全攻防體系,開發軍地兩用的國防信息基礎設施,是激發軍隊網絡空間作戰能力創新的源泉。

一是統籌國家,軍隊和各級政府等軍民融合職能部門,設置專門的指揮協調機構,調動一切國家網絡力量,建設“軍民一體”,“平戰結合”的網絡安全攻防體系。

二是盡快出台網絡安全軍民融合深度發展指導性意見,逐步展開軍民融合基本法律研究論證,指導中長期軍民融合發展。

三是依托國家現有公共移動通信網,光纖通信網及衛星系統,軍民共建覆蓋全國全軍的信息基礎設施,實現軍民統建,分管共享。

四是建立軍民聯合的應急響應機制,加大培訓軍地主管部門控制事態的能力,加強專家和應急專業力量,提升快速恢復受損網絡或信息系統的能力。

軍民聯訓,為網絡空間軍事能力生成提供實戰化環境。網絡空間的軍民共用特性使得軍民聯訓成為世界各國網絡空間軍事演訓的重要方式。美國及北約等國家的網絡空間軍民聯合演習已經形成系列化,“網絡風暴”,“網絡衛士”等演練活動吸引了政府,企業,研究機構甚至民間黑客的廣泛參與。我軍網絡空間軍事力量訓練也需要廣泛吸引民間力量參與。

一是搞好軍政合作,建立軍民聯合攻防演練機制,借鑒美國等發達國家網絡戰演練中的紅藍對抗訓練方法,積極建設“國家網絡靶場”,策劃政府,民間機構系列聯合演習,提升軍民一體,官民一體的網絡攻防水平。

二是搞好軍企協作,在互聯網上依靠網信企業設置演練場區,促進軍民之間攻防能力磨合,共同提高防範未知風險能力。

三是著眼軍隊和地方兩頭管理模式改革,以各省市政府,軍隊和地方企事業單位的管理機制為依托,建立網絡國防預備役人才聯合培養使用機制,完善國家應急動員機制,建立國家網絡防禦專用人才數據庫,將網絡民兵和預備役部隊建設納入人民武裝動員的範圍,平時按規定編入民兵應急分隊進行訓練,急時挑選精幹人員隨隊參加遂行非戰爭軍事行動任務,戰時按需要成建制徵召使用,使國防潛力轉變為國防實力。

Original referring url:  http://mil.huanqiu.com/strategysituation/2017-04/

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception // 中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception //

中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

By 胡 堅

 From various news media, we can often read reports of hacking attacks on US information systems and computer networks, especially when the United States is arrogant and provocative in the world. . As a country with the most reliance on computers and information technology and the most popular application in the world, the vulnerability of the US information system and the vulnerability caused by its huge number are obvious. However, we must not forget that the United States is not only the only superpower in the world today, but also the number one information technology power. The importance of the United States to information warfare and the depth of research are unmatched by any country in the world. In addition to theoretical research, the United States has conducted several information warfare simulations and practical exercises of varying sizes. The US information war strategy is consistent with the starting point of its global military strategic thinking and is based on aggressiveness and expansion. While arguing and even exaggerating hackers pose a serious threat to its information infrastructure, on the other hand, the United States is quietly taking an active position in its information warfare in the future, and even launching large-scale information to other countries. Attack and make positive preparations. Therefore, people should not take it lightly and relax their vigilance. This article intends to briefly explain some important viewpoints of the United States on the strategic theory of information warfare for reference. 
    I. The United States’ definition of information warfare The 
    United States has been studying information warfare theory for a long time, and has published a large number of research literatures in this area, but the definition of information warfare has been constantly revised and improved. At the beginning of 1996, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States gave an earlier definition of 
    information warfare : information warfare refers to the impact of capturing information superiority, the enemy information systems and computer networks, and the existing information systems and Facilities such as computer networks are protected and information is taken.
    The above includes two aspects of attack and protection of the information infrastructure (NII). In October 1998, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a perfection and supplement to the definition of information warfare in the newly promulgated “Information Warfare Common Dogma”. The most striking thing is that it is the first time in the form of government documents. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) is included in the scope of the information warfare. There are two main points: First, civilian facilities such as telephone, electric power and air traffic control systems will become the targets of information warfare attacks; second, the act of using any means to interfere with and destroy the enemy’s information decision-making process has been put into practice. . 
    The above definition shows that in order to achieve its strategic goals, the United States will not hesitate to destroy the vital infrastructure of a country as a means to force the other party to submit, in the process, it does not care about any loss that may be caused to civilians. With casualties. This was fully taught in the conflict that erupted in Kosovo from April to June 1999. 
    Second, the enemy 
    of information warfare The definition of the enemy of the information warfare in the United States is very complicated and ambiguous. The definition in the “Information Warfare Common Dogma” is as follows: 
    “The enemy of information warfare refers to the influence of my decision makers. Information threats and terrorist acts that are organized, premeditated and politically motivated or politically motivated. Hackers, individuals or organized criminals, internal apostates, industrial and economic agents who attack attacks on protected information systems and Terrorists are among the following. 
    From this definition, we can find that under certain circumstances, the United States can include foreign individuals or organizations, even a sovereign country, among its opponents of information warfare. Let us take an analogy: an energy company in a third world country negotiates with a US company and intends to purchase the electric equipment produced by the latter. Since the energy company’s information management system was purchased from the Netherlands and managed by Dutch engineering and technical personnel, these managers inadvertently learned about the transaction and reported the home country company, which led to the involvement of Dutch power equipment manufacturing companies. Competing with US companies ultimately led to major changes in the outcome of the deal. So the Dutch contender has in fact become a hostile party to the US information warfare. 
    Third, the strategic considerations of information warfare
    The US information war strategy is one of the means of dismantling the enemy and forcing the opponent to obey the will of the United States and act according to the will of the United States. The explanation in the “Information Warfare Common Dogma” is as follows: 
    “In the peace year and the initial stage of the crisis, information warfare may be the best deterrent means to exert influence on the other party. Information warfare is to resolve the crisis and shorten the confrontation cycle. Enhancing the effectiveness of intelligence, diplomacy, economic and military means, and avoiding the use of mercenaries in conflict zones will play a major role.” 
    Please pay close attention to the “best deterrent measures in peace years…” In a word, this is a very threatening phrase because it shows that the United States can initiate an information attack from any country that it considers to be an opponent without declaring war. That is to say, in the form of a formal program document, the United States has unambiguously stated to the world that information warfare will be an effective tool for intervening in other countries’ internal affairs and interfering in other countries’ internal affairs during the years of peace. 
    US information warfare expert William Church From the above theory, several different types of conflicts or crises in the world that may occur in the future, information warfare is proposed to solve several hypothetical means: 
    one hypothetical: war territorial dispute triggered by 
the first Second British, Ama Island War. The traditional war process is considered to be that Argentina once again sent troops and reclaimed the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands). The United Kingdom is convinced that Argentina is difficult to find international carriers because it does not have aircraft carriers and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Holding the island, the end of the war will still be the same as last time, with the British sending a powerful fleet to attack the island, Argentina defeated and summed, Britain won the return to the island. 
    But after considering the factors of information warfare, another situation may arise. Since information warfare will become an important weapon in future wars, Argentina can make full use of it to change its obvious weakness and counterattack Britain. And the final peace talks opportunity may also be created by the clever use of information warfare. In the war, the information warfare that Argentina can implement has the following aspects:
    1. Obstructing each other’s war preparations: Through the means of information attacks, the British military’s communication systems and equipment are ineffective, destroying the British military’s personnel and equipment database, delaying the preparations for war in the UK, and increasing the huge expenditure for this. In the end, it may even force the British government to reconsider its ability and feasibility to take military action. 
    2. Psychological warfare changes the public opinion of the British public: psychological warfare can be varied, from spreading rumors to creating false news and stories that can dominate the entire paradox. The effect of using psychological warfare alone may not be ideal, but if combined with other means of information warfare, it can produce excellent results. 
    3. Creating a national information infrastructure crisis: If Argentina can launch an effective attack on the UK’s telecommunications, telephone, rail and air traffic control information infrastructure, it will be paralyzed or awkward. In this case, the British government wants to The determination to send troops to a war thousands of miles away will be difficult. In the half-month voyage of the aircraft carrier battle group to the destination, the voices and plans for seeking a peaceful solution that accompanied the domestic panic are likely to be brewing or negotiating. 
    4. Destroy the economic and financial means of maintaining war in the UK: weaknesses and shortcomings in the financial system can be exploited to create financial crises and panic. In 1998, there was an incident in the US stock market that caused the stock index to fall 200 points in just a few minutes due to computer program errors. The cause of the incident was that when a computer program reported the proceeds of several investment funds, the data was wrong due to incorrect programming. As a result, the stock price fluctuations of these funds caused a French businessman to be shocked and first hit. The order of immediately throwing the disk, the result triggered a panic that should not have occurred, causing the stock market to plummet, and many companies and shareholders suffered heavy losses. Information warfare experts believe that such defects can be replicated by means of information. It can attract the attention of the government and create a serious illusion of economic problems, thus affecting the government’s decision-making and financial support for war. 
    Hypothesis 2: Disagreements caused by economic dependence
    Singapore is a city with a combination of international trading port, Far East financial center and Southeast Asian sea transportation center. It is economically developed and the people are rich, but it is a small country. The neighboring Malaysia is vast, but it is very poor and backward. Due to the small size of the country, Singapore’s air routes will pass through the southern part of Malaysia. This route is called the “air corridor” and it is a lifeline of Singapore. Although the two countries are both ASEAN countries, the relationship is still good, but there have been differences in how to use the “air corridor.” If one day Malaysia refuses to continue to use Singapore’s route through its airspace, the differences between the two countries may develop into a confrontation. 
    Information warfare can have many different ways of expression in this dispute. The most noticeable thing is that Singapore refused to provide advanced air traffic control services to Malaysia to pressure Malaysia to surrender and was forced to sit down and negotiate to solve the problem. And disputes. Because there is no binding clause in international law for such retaliation, once such incidents occur, it will surely attract strong attention from the international community. 
    The illusion of three: 
    a typical example of military confrontation and nuclear competition is the nuclear race and long-term military confrontation between India and Pakistan. Information weapons are likely to play a key role in resolving and eliminating this growing competition. The use of advanced electromagnetic pulse weapons, or the use of hacker infiltration methods to smash the nuclear weapons control information system and destroy the database of research data, can shake the nuclear weapons research programs of these two countries. This approach can also be extended to attack and destroy all important manufacturing, production and test equipment. 
    The illusion of the fourth: to change the attitude of a country from the eradication of the economy 
    In the information war, do not underestimate the impact of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) attack, it can give attackers an ideal opportunity to manipulate the economic situation of the other side. The direct result is that it can force hostile countries to greatly reduce their military spending, turn their financial resources to restore the economy, or force hostile countries to move from confrontation to easing.
    Let us use an imaginary information attack example to illustrate its great destructiveness: A country confronts with B. During this period, State A found that B has an important water conservancy project (such as the river dam) and the national economy and people’s livelihood. It is closely related, so the country took the means of information attack, invaded and took over the monitoring and management system of the dam, and by changing the water storage capacity of the dam reservoir, it achieved the purpose of significantly changing the climate dry humidity in a certain area of ​​B; Further, if State A puts a virus or destructive code in the dam’s control system, the reservoir’s control and regulation system suddenly fails at critical moments (such as the flood season), and as a result, the reservoir is lost due to flooding. The role of flooding, causing serious natural disasters and economic losses, in the end, the original economic advantages of the country B completely lost, under the pressure of internal and external, the country B had to succumb to the country. 
    The illusion of the fifth: the use of information weapons to obtain the same effect of using weapons of mass destruction in information warfare research, a problem that US information warfare experts are very interested in is: using information attacks, can create similar pearls of the year The massive damage effect of the Hong Kong incident? The conclusion is that, in theory, this possibility is completely present and necessary in hostile action, because it can greatly weaken the other’s ability to respond, resulting in the same possible military cost. effect. However, to achieve this, it is impossible to achieve without careful planning and sufficient resources to support and support. The US research program in this area is highly classified and unknown to outsiders. 
    The US military strategy theory believes that a country’s infrastructure can be greatly weakened by exerting a long-lasting military strike against it. But the ultimate goal of this is to clear the obstacles for the peace talks and force the other party to accept harsh conditions for peace talks. To this end, not only detailed and thorough target strike plans and multiple simulation rehearsals for attack plans, but also contingency measures in case of retaliatory counterattacks, as well as a complete command and logistics support system, etc., are required. Wait. NATO’s humanitarian signage and the brutal invasion of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are an actual rehearsal of this theory. 
    four. The traditional strategic defense priority theory faces severe challenges
    In the spring of 1998, American military experts Stephen Van Evra and Charles L. Glazer published the “Attack, Defence, and War Causes” in the American Journal of International Security, Vol. 22, No. 4. “The concept of “attack and defense balance point and its measurement” and many other articles, that during the Cold War after World War II, it belongs to the era of strategic defense theory. At that time, the confrontational East and West sides were evenly matched and indifferent to each other in terms of the quantity and quality of their own conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. They always tried to avoid direct conflicts and confrontation. The main concern of both sides at the time was the balance and constraints of each other. 
    But nowadays, due to the emergence of a new war mode—-the emergence of information warfare, it is possible to use information attacks to directly attack the infrastructure of a country. Especially in information warfare, the cost of the attacker is far less than that of the defender. Therefore, some military experts in the United States believe that the old strategic theory must be revised to meet the needs of the new situation. In addition, they also stressed that implementation of the new strategic theory, depends on three factors simultaneously: 
    · On the basis of a strong military machine as a backup and security, and gradually reduce the investment in traditional military equipment; 
    · globalization The neoliberal trend of thought and the appreciation and acceptance of global market mechanisms; 
    • The dependence of developed and developing countries on information infrastructure is growing. The heart of speculation can be seen here. 
    American military critic Lawrence Friedman made a profound understanding and elaboration of the above-mentioned theory among American military personnel: “Western countries (the United States and NATO) have never considered the ultimate in developing military capabilities. The way of thinking has developed to such a dangerous point: if the military strength cannot reach the full overwhelming tendency of the enemy and the enemy has no power to fight, it cannot be regarded as qualified; the purpose of military action is to follow the set. The plan creates a very favorable negotiating position for one’s own side. Therefore, this time (the introduction of the new strategic theory), it is also necessary to take the lead in the comprehensive consideration of various factors.”

Original Mandarin Chinese:

從各種新聞媒體上,我們經常可以讀到美國的信息系統和計算機網絡遭到黑客攻擊的報導,特別是當美國在世界上蠻橫霸道、挑起事端時,這種攻擊就愈發激烈。作為世界上對計算機和信息技術依賴最重、應用最普及的一個國家,美國信息系統的易受攻擊性和由其龐大數量所帶來的脆弱性,是顯而易見的。但是,我們不要忘了,美國不僅是當今世界上唯一的超級大國,而且也是頭號信息技術強國,美國對信息戰的重視程度和研究的深度,是世界上任何一個國家都無法比擬的。除理論研究外,美國還進行過多次規模不等的信息戰模擬和實戰演習。美國的信息戰戰略,與其全球軍事戰略思想的出發點一致,也是建立在攻擊性和擴張性基礎上的。在大肆宣揚甚至誇張黑客對其信息基礎設施構成了嚴重威脅的同時,另一方面,美國卻在不聲不響地為其未來在信息戰戰爭中佔據主動地位、乃至向他國發動大規模的信息攻擊,進行著積極的準備。因此,人們切不可以掉以輕心,放鬆警惕。本文擬對美國在信息戰戰略理論上的一些重要觀點做一簡要的闡述,以供參考。
一、美國對信息戰的定義
美國對信息戰理論的研究由來已久,並發布過大量這方面的研究文獻,但對信息戰的定義卻一直在不斷地修改​​和完善之中。 1996年初,美國參謀長聯席會議曾給信息戰下過一個較早的定義:
信息戰是指為奪取信息優勢,對敵方信息系統與計算機網絡等設施施加影響,並對已方的信息系統和計算機網絡等設施進行保護,所採取的信息行動。
上述的內容包括對信息基礎設施(NII)的攻擊與防護兩個方面。 1998年10月,參謀長聯席會議在最新頒布的《信息戰共同教條》中,又對信息戰的定義做了完善和補充,其中最引人注目的,就是它首次以政府文件的形式,把國家信息基礎設施(NII)列入了信息戰打擊的對象範圍之內。其要點有二:一是民用設施如電話、電力與空中交通管制系統等,將會成為信息戰攻擊的目標;二是把用任何手段干擾和破壞敵方信息決策過程的行為,付諸了條文。
上述定義說明,為了實現自己的戰略目標,美國將不惜以摧毀一個國家生死攸關的基礎設施為手段,來達到迫使對方就範的目的,而在此過程中,它並不在乎可能給平民帶來的任何損失與傷亡。 1999年4-6月在科索沃爆發的衝突中,人們就充分領教了這一點。
二、信息戰的敵方
美國對於信息戰敵對一方的定義,是十分複雜而又含混的,在《信息戰共同教條》中的定義如下:
“信息戰的敵方,是指影響我決策者的有組織、有預謀並帶有政治目的或受政治動機所激發的信息威脅與恐怖行為。對受保護的信息系統發動攻擊的黑客、個人或有組織的罪犯、內部變節者、工業和經濟間諜及恐怖主義分子,均屬此列。”
從該定義中我們可以發現,在特定情況下,美國可以把國外的個人或組織、甚至某個主權國家,都納入其信息戰的對手之列。我們不妨來打一個比方:某個第三世界國家的能源公司與美國某企業進行商談,打算購買後者生產的電力設備。由於該能源公司的信息管理系統購自荷蘭,且受荷蘭工程技術人員管理,這些管理人員在無意中知悉了這一交易,並報告了母國公司,結果使荷蘭的電力設備製造公司也介入進來,與美國公司開展競爭,最終使這筆交易的結果發生了很大的變化。於是荷蘭的這個競爭者,事實上就成了美國信息戰的敵對一方。
三、信息戰的戰略考慮
美國的信息戰戰略,是把它作為瓦解敵方,強制對手順從美國的意願,按美國的意志行事的手段之一。在《信息戰共同教條》中的闡述如下:
“在和平年月以及危機爆發的最初階段,信息戰有可能是對對方施加影響的最好的威懾手段。信息戰對於化解危機、縮短對抗週期,增強情報、外交、經濟與軍事手段的效能,盡量避免在衝突地區採用僱傭軍等,都將發揮重大的作用。”
請仔細注意上文中“在和平年月……的最好的威懾手段”這一段話,這是非常具有威脅性的辭句,因為它表明美國可以從自身的利益出發,在不宣戰的情況下向任何一個它認為是對手的國家發起信息攻擊。也就是說,美國以正式的綱領文件的形式,向世人明白無誤地聲明了信息戰將是它在和平年月時介入別國內部事務、干涉別國內政的一個有效的工具。
美國信息戰專家威廉·丘奇從上述理論出發,對未來世界上可能發生的幾種不同類型的衝突或危機,提出了幾種假想的信息戰解決手段:
假想之一:領土爭端引發的戰爭
第二次英、阿馬島戰爭。傳統的戰爭進程考慮是,阿根廷再次出兵,收回了馬爾維納斯群島(福克蘭群島),英國確信阿根廷由於沒有航空母艦和洲際彈道導彈,以及難以尋求到國際上的實質性援助,所以很難守住馬島,因此戰爭的結局仍會同上次一樣,以英國派出強大的艦隊向馬島發起進攻,阿根廷戰敗求和,英國奪回馬島而告終。
但是考慮信息戰的因素後,就可能出現另外的情況,由於信息戰在未來戰爭中必將成為一個重要的武器,阿根廷可以充分利用它來改變自己的明顯弱勢,反擊英國。並且最終的和談機會,也可能由對信息戰的巧妙運用而營造出來。在戰爭中,阿根廷可以實施的信息戰手段有以下幾個方面:
1.阻礙對方的戰爭準備:通過信息攻擊手段,使英國軍方的通信系統和設備喪失效能,破壞英軍的人員和裝備數據庫,遲緩英國的戰爭準備,並使其為此增加巨大的開支。最終,甚至可能迫使英國政府重新考慮它採取軍事行動的能力和可行性。
2.以心理戰改變英國公眾的輿論向背:心理戰的方式可以有多種多樣,從散佈各種謠言,到製造能夠主導整個輿論向背的虛假新聞和故事等等,不一而足。單獨採用心理戰的手法效果可能不會很理想,但若是與信息戰的其他手段結合使用,則可以產生出色的效果。
3.製造國家信息基礎設施危機:如果阿根廷能對英國的電信、電話、鐵路與航空管制等信息基礎設施發起有效的攻擊,使其陷入癱瘓或半癱瘓,在這種情況下,英國政府要想出兵進行一場遠在幾千英里之外的戰爭,其決心將會是很難下的。在航空母艦戰鬥群開赴目的地的半個多月航程中,伴隨著國內恐慌而誕生的尋求和平解決的呼聲及方案,很可能就已經在醞釀或商談之中。
4.破壞英國維持戰爭的經濟和財源手段:金融體制上的弱點和缺陷,可以被利用來製造金融危機和恐慌。 1998年,美國股市曾發生一起因電腦程序錯誤導致在短短幾分鐘內股指狂跌200點的事件。事件的起因是,一個電腦程序在報告幾個投資基金的收益時,由於程序設計有誤使數據出錯,結果引起這幾個基金股價的波動,一位法國商人見狀大驚失色,首先打出“立即拋盤”的指令,結果引發了一場本來不該發生的恐慌,造成股市大跌,不少企業和股東損失慘重。信息戰專家認為,這種缺陷是可以利用信息手段進行複制的,它可以吸引政府的注意力,造成一種經濟問題嚴重的假象,從而影響政府對戰爭的決策與財力支持。
假想之二:經濟依存關係導致的分歧
新加坡是一個集國際貿易港、遠東金融中心、東南亞海上交通中心於一身的城市國家,經濟發達、人民富裕,但卻是個彈丸小國;而毗鄰的馬來西亞國土遼闊,但卻十分貧困和落後。由於國土很小,新加坡的空中航線要穿過馬來西亞的南部地區,這段航線被叫做“空中走廊”,它是新加坡的一條生命線。兩國雖同屬東盟國家,關係尚好,但在如何使用“空中走廊”上一直存在分歧。如果有一天馬來西亞拒絕新加坡繼續使用穿越其領空的這條航線,兩國之間的分歧就可能會發展成為一種對抗。
信息戰在這場糾紛中可以有很多不同的表現方式,而最能引起人們注意的,就是新加坡以拒絕向馬來西亞提供先進的空中交通管制服務,來壓馬來西亞屈服,最終被迫坐下來談判解決問題和糾紛。因為國際法中沒有對這種報復行為的約束條款,一旦這類事件發生,必將引起國際社會強烈的注意。
假象之三:軍事對峙與核競賽
這方面的典型例子是印度、巴基斯坦的核競賽與長期軍事對峙。而信息武器在化解和消弭這場愈演愈烈的對抗賽中,有可能發揮關鍵的作用。利用先進的電磁脈衝武器,或者採取黑客滲透的方法來癱瘓雙方核武器的控制信息系統、破壞其存放研究資料的數據庫,可以動搖這兩個國家的核武器研究計劃。這種方法還能夠擴大到對所有重要的製造、生產與試驗設備進行攻擊和破壞。
假象之四:從搞垮經濟入手轉變一個國家的態度
在信息戰中,切不要小看對國家信息基礎設施(NII)的攻擊效果,它可以使攻擊者獲得一個理想的操縱對方經濟形勢的機會,其直接的結果,就是能夠迫使敵對國大大減少其軍事開支、將財力轉向恢復經濟,或者使敵對國被迫從對抗走向緩和。
讓我們用一個假象的信息攻擊的例子,來說明它的巨大破壞性:甲國與乙國發生對抗,在此期間,甲國發現乙國有一個重要的水利工程(如攔河大壩)與國計民生息息相關,於是甲國採取信息攻擊的手段,入侵並接管了這個大壩的監控管理系統,並通過改變大壩水庫蓄水量的做法,達到了明顯改變乙國某地區氣候乾濕度的目的;更進一步,如果甲國在大壩的控制系統中安放了病毒或破壞性的代碼,使水庫的控制調節系統在關鍵時刻(如洪澇季節)突然失靈,結果在洪水來臨時水庫喪失了應有的調節作用,造成洪水氾濫,產生嚴重的自然災害和經濟損失,最終,乙國原有的經濟優勢完全喪失,在內外壓力下,乙國不得不屈服於甲國。
假象之五:用信息武器獲得採用大規模毀傷性武器得到的同樣效果在信息戰研究中,美國的信息戰專家們很感興趣的一個問題是:利用信息攻擊手段,能否創造出類似當年珍珠港事件那樣的大規模毀傷效果?結論是,從理論上講,這種可能性是完全存在的,而且在敵對行動中非常必要,因為它能夠大大削弱對方的應變能力,從而產生要花極大的軍事代價才有可能得到的同樣效果。但是,要想做到這一點,沒有周密的計劃和足夠的資源配合與支持,是不可能實現的。美國在這​​方面的研究計劃被列入高度機密,外人無從知曉。
美國的軍事戰略理論認為,一個國家的基礎設施,可以通過對其施以長時間持續不斷的軍事打擊,來予以大大削弱。但這樣做的最終目的,是為和談掃清障礙,迫使對方接受苛刻的和談條件。為此,不但需要詳細而又周密的目標打擊計劃和針對攻擊行動方案的多次模擬預演,還要製定在遭到對方報復性反擊情況下的應變措施,以及完善的指揮與後勤保障系統,等等。北約打著人道主義招牌,對南聯盟實施的野蠻入侵行為,就是對這一理論的一次實際預演。
四.傳統的戰略防禦優先理論面臨嚴峻的挑戰
1998年春,美國軍事專家斯蒂芬·範·埃弗拉與查爾斯·L·格拉澤等人,在美國出版的刊物《國際安全》第22卷第4期上,發表了“進攻,防禦與戰爭的起因”、“攻防平衡點的概念及其度量”等多篇文章,認為二戰後的冷戰期間,屬於戰略防禦理論優先的時代。那時,對峙的東、西雙方在各自擁有的常規武器和核武器的數量與質量上,勢均力敵、難分伯仲,彼此都忌憚三分,因此總是力求避免爆發直接的衝突和對抗。當時雙方關注的主要問題,是相互的平衡與製約。
但是如今,由於新的戰爭模式—-信息戰的出現,使利用信息攻擊手段直接打擊一個國家的基礎設施成為了可能,尤其是在信息戰中,進攻方的代價要遠遠小於防禦方,因此美國的一些軍事專家們認為,必須修改舊的戰略理論,以適應新的形勢發展的需要。此外,他們還強調新的戰略理論的實施,有賴於以下三個因素的同步進行:
·在有強大軍事機器作為後盾和保障的基礎上,逐步降低在傳統軍事裝備上的投資;
·對全球化的新自由主義思潮,以及全球市場機制採取讚賞和接受的態度;
·發達國家和發展中國家對信息基礎設施的依賴越來越大。叵測之心,於此可窺一斑。
美國軍事評論家勞倫斯·弗里德曼,對美國軍方人士中的上述理論,作了深刻的認識和闡述:“西方國家(美國和北約)在發展軍事能力上,是永遠沒有終極考慮的。其思想方式已經發展到瞭如此危險的地步:軍事實力若不能達到對敵呈完全壓倒之勢、使敵方毫無招架之力,則不能算做合格;軍事行動的目的,就是要按照即定的計劃,為己方製造出一個極為有利的談判地位。因此這一次(新的戰略理論思想的提出),同樣是在綜合考慮各種因素的前提下,要想把先機佔盡。”

Original Referring url: http://old.globalview.cn/

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare // 中國軍事信息戰:現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare //

中國軍事信息戰:現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

  The transformation of the characteristics of war is always motivated by the advancement of science and technology. If “information-led” is the characteristic of the era of today’s war, then the essence of this feature is “the dominance of information technology.” Information warfare is a new combat force that is fostered and fueled by information technology innovation.

Information warfare is the new quality of combat power

三、衛星在現代戰爭中扮演的角色為何? 四、資訊戰有哪兩種主要模式?

“knowing one’s own confidant, no wars, no war” has always been the only rule of war victory, it actually embodies the important role of “information” in the war. Since ancient times, the military has always been pursuing the dispelling of “the fog of war”, reducing the probabilistic nature of the war, and taking the lead. At the same time, it hopes to quickly gather the fighting energy with accurate and timely information to make the enemy win the enemy. Nowadays, the heroic pace of human innovation in information technology has driven the rapid development of society. The myth of “thousands of eyes and ears” has long been a reality. While the results of information technology innovation and development are fully utilized for war, they are also constantly promoting the transformation of the combat capability generation model.
The germination of information warfare can be traced back to the beginning of the last century. Shortly after the advent of the radio telegraph, Russian scientist Popov proposed the idea of ​​radio communication struggle in 1903. In the Japanese-Russian War that broke out in 1904, the two sides used radio communication for the first time. One day in April of that year, the Russian military operator subconsciously used the radio station to interfere with the shooting and guiding communication of the Japanese fleet, forcing the Japanese to return without success. The original sprout of this technical idea gave birth to a new way of warfare, and the information war began to enter the stage of war. The highly developed information technology has made “systems based on information systems” a feature of today’s war. It should be said that systemic confrontation is not a form of engagement that exists today. Both sides of the war have sought to form a strong operational system. In different historical periods, the system has different manifestations. Today’s combat system is an unprecedentedly powerful combat system that relies on networked information systems. An important manifestation of information technology playing a leading role in modern warfare is to promote the rapid development of information warfare. At the same time that “information-led” became the identifier of modern warfare, information warfare began to leap into a new kind of combat power.
Having a strong information power makes an army savvy and responsive, and the integration of information power into the strike force increases the military’s operational effectiveness into a geometric progression. Information warfare is the first sword to break the efficient integration of information firepower.
Information power is the ability to acquire, transmit, process, and use information. The enhancement of information means that information is acquired more and more comprehensively, information transmission is faster and more accurate, information processing is automated, and information usage tends to be intelligent. This makes the military’s command efficient, precise control, quick action, and powerful. From the perspective of operational mechanism, the effectiveness of information power in the combat system is manifested in the synergy of the strike force and the transformation of combat effectiveness. Although the information itself cannot directly kill the enemy, the information is used to realize the intelligent control of the combat weapon. Produced a powerful and powerful strike and non-contact strike.
Information deterrence is an important information warfare action, which can reduce the intensity of confrontation, and even force the opponent to give up resistance. It may produce a satisfactory combat effect and achieve the highest pursuit of “no war and defeated soldiers”. The principle is that the opponent It is a huge blow to the coming, and it is limited to the ability to stop the information. The achievement of the deterrent effect is the fusion effect of the multiple elements of strength, ability and determination. As a result of the high degree of integration of information and firepower, information multiplies the effectiveness of firepower, and firepower transforms information energy. The goal of information warfare is the opponent’s information system, which plays the role of “covering ears, obstructing, chaos”, so that the information power of the opponent is weakened and even lost, and the fusion of information firepower cannot be discussed. During the Gulf War, when the multinational forces scraped the “Desert Storm”, they first used a variety of electronic interference methods in the air and on the ground. At the same time, they used firepower to prioritize the communication and radar systems of the Iraqi army, making the Iraqi defense system still not in use. The powerful information power is completely lost, so it is stable. In the Kosovo war, the US military used a mistake in information warfare to provide a good opportunity for the Yugoslav army to make its air defense units cleverly use the less advanced information system to achieve effective integration of information firepower and shoot down the US military stealth fighters. Practice has proved that under the conditions of informationization, information warfare has become the first sword to break the efficient integration of opponents’ information firepower.
Information warfare is the primary action of transforming the enemy and the enemy
. The competition between the spear and the shield will never stop and escalate. When “information-led” shows great advantages, it will inevitably lead to “information counter-measure”. The containment of information will immediately reverse the original advantage. Information warfare is the primary action to transform the enemy and the enemy.
The basic types of combat are offense and defense, and the material means used for combat can also be divided into two types of weapons and equipment: spear and shield. Today, when combat weapons have unprecedented lethality, no one will use concentrated forces to concentrate their advantages. Synchronous strikes in different places can be an effective way to “eliminate the enemy and save oneself”, that is, the strike forces scattered in different locations simultaneously target the same target. Attacks are initiated, but only if there is precise time coordination.
Keeping time synchronized, it is obviously impossible to rely on the past manual pairing. Advanced techniques such as navigation satellite timing must be used, and once the timing synchronization information is destroyed by the opponent, the action will be completely disrupted. A force with high engine power and strike force, if attacked by the opponent’s information, causes information to be ineffective and information blocked, will not be able to figure out the direction of the action, can not find the target of the attack, become sluggish and weak. . Although the precision strike power is large, once the accurate guidance information is lost, the advantage is immediately lost. Command and control If the information is subject to control, it will lead to chaos, which will inevitably lead to chaos in the overall situation of the war.
Attacking the enemy’s information system is the focus and effort to break the battle system. The acquisition and use of information, counter-acquisition, and counter-utilization have become the focus of the battle between the two armies on the informationized battlefield. Information warfare is the preferred style for competing for battlefield control and even for war initiative.
While greatly improving the effectiveness of the combat system, the information system naturally becomes the target of the opponent’s attack, and it is the key target. Information warfare is to blinden the enemy battlefield perception system, weaken its information acquisition ability, interfere with its analysis and judgment; to block the enemy information transmission system, disrupt its coordination and destroy its actions; to deter the enemy accusation system by deception, reduce its command efficiency, Lead to mistakes in their decision-making. The more the information technology is developed and the more highly dependent on the information system, the more serious the consequences of its information system attack. Quaker, former chairman of the American “Old Ravens” Association, once wrote: “Advanced technology makes us highly dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum, but at the same time, we are not well invested in building electronic protection capabilities.” “The enemy uses cheap commercial technology. It can reduce or even destroy the performance of our expensive ISR equipment and weapon platforms, thereby limiting or even seriously weakening our technological advantages.” Because military electronic information systems are being widely used worldwide, in fact, the degree of dependence of national military on information systems It is constantly deepening. Therefore, all military powers are competing to develop information warfare. Some small countries are not willing to lag behind and follow suit. In modern warfare, it is of vital importance to seize the comprehensive control of the battlefield. The right to make information has become an indispensable commanding height, and it is the primary means of controlling the battlefield and mastering the initiative of war.
The information war has stood at the forefront of the contemporary military game. The
war is usually based on crossfire. The information war is invisible, the threshold is low, and the controllability is good. In peacetime, it is possible to start a dark battle and quietly extend the border of war. Information warfare has stood at the forefront of contemporary military games.
In today’s world, the use of military means is becoming more complex. War is not only a continuation of politics, but also a close integration of politics and military, subject to the overall strategy of political strategy. The use of force will also interact with politics, economy, diplomacy, and public opinion in a multi-dimensional, organically connected and closely coordinated. Information warfare is active on an invisible front, spanning peacetime and wartime. For example, the confrontation between information warfare reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance between major powers is now almost every day. Although it is widely believed that the engagement of fire is a watershed between war and peace, the boundaries of war are changing due to the particularity of the use of new military struggle styles such as information warfare. According to reports, the US government recently publicly stated that the law of war applies to cyberattacks. It believes that certain cyber attacks are equivalent to the “use of force” legal concept as defined in the UN Charter. The attacked countries can use conventional military forces or cyber weapons. Counterattack. At the same time, we also see that the arrival of the information age has made the shadow of information warfare often appear in the struggle in the ideological field. The construction and development of information warfare capabilities have received increasing attention from all countries. In December 2011, Iran comprehensively used information warfare methods such as interference suppression, data deception, and link control to successfully deceive and capture a US military RQ-170 “sentinel” unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which shocked the US military.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

戰爭特徵的嬗變總是由科學技術進步來激發,如果說“信息主導”是當今戰爭的時代特徵,那麼這一特徵的實質則是“信息技術的主導”。信息戰是信息技術創新孕育和助長的新質戰鬥力。

信息戰是新質戰鬥力

三、衛星在現代戰爭中扮演的角色為何? 四、資訊戰有哪兩種主要模式?

“知彼知己,百戰不殆”一直是戰爭制勝的不二法則,它實際上體現了“信息”在戰爭中的重要作用。自古以來,兵家總是在不斷追求驅散“戰爭迷霧”,降低戰爭的蓋然性,搶占先機;同時希望能夠以準確及時的信息迅速聚集戰鬥能量,制敵勝敵。如今,人類創新信息技術的豪邁步伐,驅動了社會的迅猛發展,“千里眼、順風耳”的神話早已成為現實。信息技術創新發展成果在立即為戰爭所充分利用的同時,也在不斷推動戰鬥力生成模式的轉變。
信息戰的萌芽可以上溯到上個世紀初。當時無線電報問世不久,俄國科學家波波夫就於1903年提出了無線電通信鬥爭的思想。 1904年爆發的日俄戰爭中,作戰雙方首次運用了無線電通信,當年4月的一天,俄軍報務員下意識地利用無線電台干擾了日軍艦隊的射擊引導通信,迫使日軍無功而返。這種技術思想的原始萌動孕育了一種新的作戰方式,信息戰開始登上戰爭的舞台。信息技術的高度發達,使得“基於信息系統的體係作戰”成為當今戰爭的時代特徵。應該說,體係對抗並不是今天才有的交戰形式,戰爭中交戰雙方都力求形成一個強大的作戰體系,在不同歷史時期,體係有著不同的表現形態。今天的作戰體係是依靠網絡化的信息系統聯成的一個威力空前強大的作戰體系,信息技術在現代戰爭中發揮主導作用的一個重要表現,就是助長了信息戰的快速發展。在“信息主導”成為現代戰爭的標識符的同時,信息戰開始躍變為一種新質戰鬥力。
擁有強大的信息力使一支軍隊耳聰目明、反應敏捷,信息力融入打擊力則使軍隊的作戰效能成幾何級數增加。信息戰是打破信息火力高效融合的第一把利劍。
信息力是獲取、傳輸、處理、使用信息的能力。信息力的增強意味著信息的獲取更多、更全,信息的傳輸更快、更準,信息的處理具備自動化,信息的使用趨於智能化。這就使得軍隊的指揮高效,控制精準,行動迅捷,打擊有力。從作戰機理上看,信息力在作戰系統中的效能發揮,體現的是對打擊力的增效和向戰鬥力的轉化,信息本身雖不能直接殺傷敵人,但使用信息實現打擊兵器的智能化控制就產生了威力巨大的精確打擊和非接觸打擊。
信息威懾是一種重要的信息戰行動,可以降低對抗強度,甚至迫使對手放棄抵抗,可能產生令人滿意的戰鬥力效應,實現“不戰而屈人之兵”的最高追求,而其原理是對手懾於隨之會來的巨大打擊力,懾於能力而止於信息,威懾效果的達成是實力、能力、決心多元要素的融合效應。信息與火力的高度融合的結果就是,信息使火力效能倍增,火力讓信息能量轉化。信息戰的目標是對手的信息系統,起到的作用是“掩耳、障目、亂心”,使對手的信息力受到削弱以至喪失,信息火力的融合也就無從談起。海灣戰爭中,多國部隊刮起“沙漠風暴”之時,首先動用的就是空中和地面的多種電子乾擾手段,同時運用火力優先打擊伊軍的通信和雷達系統,使得伊軍防禦體系中尚不強大的信息力完全喪失,因而穩操勝券。而科索沃戰爭中,美軍使用信息戰的一次失誤,為南聯盟軍隊提供了良機,使其防空部隊巧妙運用不夠先進的信息系統,實現信息火力的有效融合,擊落了美軍隱形戰機。實踐證明,信息化條件下,信息戰已成為打破對手信息火力高效融合的第一把利劍。
信息戰是轉變敵我優劣對比的首要行動
矛與盾的較量永不停息、不斷升級。當“信息主導”顯現出巨大優勢時,就必然引發“信息反制”。信息的受制,會使原有的優勢立即逆轉。信息戰是轉變敵我優劣對比的首要行動。
作戰的基本類型就是進攻和防禦,用以作戰的物質手段也可以區分為矛和盾兩大類型的武器裝備。在打擊兵器具有空前殺傷力的今天,誰都不會再用集中兵力來集中優勢,而異地同步打擊不失為“消滅敵人、保存自己”的有效方式,即分散於不同地點的打擊力量同時對同一目標發起攻擊,但條件是必須有精確的時間協同。
保持時間同步,靠過去的人工對錶顯然已不可能,必須利用如導航衛星授時等先進技術,而授時同步信息一旦被對手破壞,行動就會被徹底打亂。一支具有高機動力和打擊力的部隊,如果受到對手的信息攻擊,導致信息不靈、信息受阻,將會搞不清行動的方向,找不到攻擊的目標,​​變得行動呆滯、打擊無力。精確打擊威力雖大,但一旦丟失精確制導信息而打不准,優勢即刻盡失。指揮控制如果信息受制,就會陣腳大亂,勢必造成作戰全局陷於混亂。
攻擊敵方的信息系統是打破其作戰體系的著力點和發力點。信息的獲取與反獲取、利用與反利用,已成為信息化戰場上兩軍爭鬥的焦點。信息戰是爭奪戰場控制權乃至戰爭主動權的首選樣式。
信息系統在極大地提升作戰體系效能的同時,也自然成為對手的攻擊目標,而且是要害目標。信息戰就是通過迷盲敵戰場感知系統,削弱其信息獲取能力、干擾其分析判斷;通過阻斷敵信息傳輸系統,擾亂其協同、破壞其行動;通過欺騙擾亂敵指控系統,降低其指揮效率、導致其決策失誤。愈是信息技術發達、愈是高度依賴信息系統的軍隊,其信息系統受到攻擊的後果愈嚴重。美國“老烏鴉”協會前主席奎克曾經撰文指出:“先進的技術使我們高度依賴電磁頻譜,但與此同時,我們沒有很好地投資建設電子防護能力。”“敵人利用廉價的商用技術就可以降低甚至破壞我們昂貴的ISR設備以及武器平台的效能,從而限制甚至嚴重削弱我們的技術優勢。”由於軍事電子信息系統正在世界範圍內得到廣泛運用,事實上各國軍隊對信息系統的依賴程度都在不斷加深,因此,各軍事大國競相發展信息戰,一些小國也不甘落後,紛紛效仿。現代戰爭中,奪取戰場綜合控制權至關重要,制信息權成為其中不可或缺的製高點,是控制戰場和掌握戰爭主動的首要。
信息戰已站在當代軍事博弈的前沿
戰爭通常是以交火為基本標誌。信息戰隱於無形,使用門檻低,可控性好,在平時就可能展開暗戰,悄然延伸了戰爭的邊界。信息戰已站在當代軍事博弈的前沿。
當今世界,軍事手段的使用愈加複雜。戰爭不僅是政治的繼續,而且政治軍事緊密結合,服從於政略戰略大局。武力使用也將與政治、經濟、外交、輿論鬥爭多維互動,有機銜接,密切配合。信息戰跨越平時與戰時,活躍在一條看不見的戰線上。比如,各大國相互之間的信息戰偵察與反偵察的對抗,現在幾乎每天都在進行暗中角力。雖然人們普遍認為開火交戰是戰爭與和平的分水嶺,但是,由於信息戰等新的軍事鬥爭樣式運用的特殊性,戰爭的邊界正在發生改變。據報導,美國政府最近公開表明戰爭法適用於網絡攻擊,認為某些網絡攻擊等同於《聯合國憲章》所定義的“使用武力”法律概念,受到攻擊的國家,可以使用常規軍事力量或網絡武器實施反擊。同時,我們還看到,信息時代的到來,使得意識形態領域的鬥爭中也常常閃現出信息戰的影子。信息戰能力的建設發展,已經愈來愈得到各國的重視。 2011年12月,伊朗綜合運用乾擾壓制、數據欺騙、鏈路控制等信息戰手段,成功誘騙並俘獲了美軍一架RQ-170“哨兵”無人偵察機,令美軍大為震驚。

Original Referring url: http://theory.people.com.cn/n/2012/1218/

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” // 喬亮將軍:充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” //

喬亮將軍:充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

For nearly half a century, electronic technology and information technology have developed at an impressive speed, and thus have completely changed the style of modern warfare. Although people are accustomed to the sorting of land, sea and air when they talk about the dimensions of war, from the military technical level, the “network warfare” capability of “electronic warfare” and “cyber warfare” has no doubt that it has come to the fore. Become the first combat power. Who can dominate the electronic warfare, who can dominate the battlefield. It is a pity that this conclusion has not yet been universally accepted by the military.

Carving a sword for a sword is a portrayal of the evolution of people’s understanding and the development of things. Today, when this round of military revolution is marked by electronic technology and chip technology, as the technology matures and the potential approaches the limit and comes to an end, the soldiers of most countries have a small tube and a smaller chip. It is possible to change the style of war and not yet fully prepared for the spirit and knowledge. This is an irony for human beings living in the age of information, especially those armed with informatized weapons.

The individual representation of the appearance of the world makes people intuitively divide the whole world into parts to understand and understand. Even though electronic technology and information technology have long integrated the whole world into the grid space and welded into a “domain”, people are still accustomed to split it into different “domain” blocks. For example, many soldiers who are ignorant of traditional thinking take the battle space into five major dimensions: land, sea, air, sky, and electricity, and think that they will fight in these five dimensions. The grid space battlefield, in their view, is only one of them. Even in the concept of joint operations, which attempted to bring the five-dimensional space into one, the space and space warfare is only one of the combat areas and combat styles. It is completely unknown that the world has been “informed.” Such lag thinking can’t keep up with the pace of technological leap: the boat is far from the lake, but the sword sinks to the bottom of the lake. Those who can win and win in the future battlefield must be the army that observes and thinks, operates and controls all battlefields as a whole. Only in this way can we find the key to open the door to victory: who can control the grid space, who can control the battlefield; who can prevail in the space war, who is the winner of the war. This is the general trend that modern warfare can not be reversed today.

Electronic warfare (which has evolved into information warfare or cyberspace warfare today) is a prerequisite for all modern battles, battles and even wars. In contrast, air supremacy, sea power, and even land and power, have handed over the first battle of the future battlefield to the power of the grid. Moreover, the struggle for the right to heaven is itself part of the power of the network. In Deng Shiping’s words, modern warfare, “there is no air superiority, and no one can beat it.” Yes, in the future war, there is no power to make electricity in the net, and nothing can be beaten.

Today, it is proposed to use the “air-sea battle” concept to contain China’s US military. It is a military machine that is almost fully informatized. Therefore, the US military knows that informatization is its strength and its shortcomings. Short and short, whoever has the advantage of space and space warfare, who can restrain the US military. Some people may ask, is it from a military point of view that the space warfare is so important that people think it is more important than firepower? Yes, this is the author’s answer. Because when your opponent has been fully dimensioned, it will either be better than the opponent’s network space warfare, or defeat the war first, and then the firepower war will only destroy the opponents who are still unwilling to admit defeat. The process of physical digestion.

Why is the space warfare so important? In fact, all of our main rivals have their strengths in all-dimensional informationization, and all their shortcomings are over-informatization. The shortcoming of informationization is that there is no chip-free, thus forming chip dependence. The chip makes the weapon platform ammunition stronger, but it is also extremely fragile. An electromagnetic pulse bomb can destroy all electronic components within its explosive coverage. This kind of scene makes the opponent who is armed with the chip to the teeth very scared. For us, what we fear the opponents should be our priority to focus on development.

If you play against a full-dimensional informatization opponent, the opponent is most worried about: one is attacked by the network, and the other is destroyed by the sky-based system. Because this will make the hardware advantages of all weapon platforms meaningless. Although our opponents also have this ability, once both sides use this ability to smash opponents, it means that the two sides will return to World War II. At that time, who has the advantage of population, who has the advantage of resources, who has the advantage of manufacturing, who has the advantage of war.

Seeing this clearly helps us to get rid of some kind of paradox: the more we understand the military system of our opponents, the more we worry about the gap in our military system. The more we recognize the gap, the more we want to learn to catch up with our opponents. The result is what the opponent has, I There is also something to be. In the end, I forced myself to a dead end with the strength of the opponent and the length of the opponent. How can this road lead us to “can fight, win and win”? Ancient and modern Chinese and foreign, whereever wins, all of them are short of my enemy, even if it is hard, it is the longest attack of my enemy. There is a winner who wins the enemy with the enemy. Moreover, winning the war in the future cannot be achieved at all costs. For China, there should be a requirement that is as important as victory. Weapons and equipment development and operational plan development must consider how to reduce costs. Never have anything for the opponent, we must have something. You can’t do it with the Dragon King, and you can’t become a local tyrant. You can’t compare it with the Dragon King. Today, we have some cognitive defects on how to win the overall war of local war under informatization conditions. We always consciously and unconsciously think that playing high-tech wars is a high-cost war, and we always want to compare costs with our competitors. And fight costs.

In fact, we can completely change the way of thinking, that is to take the low-cost route. There are no heavy aircraft carriers, there is no X37, there is no global fast strike system, the opponent does not care. It only cares if you can destroy its satellite system and lick its network system. After all, the tools and means of attacking satellite weapons and electromagnetic pulse bombs are not very expensive and scarce, and their effects will be low-cost and high-yield. We can’t help but fall into the arms race with our opponents because we are worried about the gap between ourselves and our opponents.

The Americans said in the “air-sea battle” concept that “we will drag China into the competition with us in this way, so that the Chinese will put more energy into the production of such missiles such as Dongfeng 21D. Then use a lot of bait and deception to force the Chinese to consume these weapons in a meaningful direction.” In this regard, someone in the country wrote an article reminding us that “we must prevent falling into the trap of the United States.” This is not wrong in itself, but it still belongs to only know one, and I don’t know the other. It is important to know that after such articles come out, it is very likely that our understanding will produce new deviations, because there are “trap traps (ie double traps)” in the above-mentioned American discourse. First, it attempts to lure the Chinese army into the trap of an arms race. If you compete with the US military, you will spend a lot of money and resources to follow the US military and not to surpass; secondly, if you realize that this is a trap and give up the competition, you will immediately fall into another trap: since giving up the arms race Waste martial arts. For China, if we are not willing to compete with our opponents and we are not willing to squander martial arts, what should we do? The conclusion is that we can only go our own way.

To develop our own strengths and develop the things that are most beneficial to me, it is best to use my strength and defeat the enemy. At least it must be my long, the enemy’s long. I can’t do it with my short enemy, and the enemy’s long enemy will not do the same. With the enemy’s long attacking enemy, you will never win.

Take a look at the main design of the “Air-Sea Battle”: the opening is to hit your space-based system, let you blind; then hit the “reconnaissance war”, let you call you; then come to officially start a regular battle with you.

Under such circumstances, what should we do? It is a passive move, the soldiers will block, the water will cover the earth, or will it be my strength, in exchange for low-cost means, in exchange for the opponent’s high-value goal? Of course, the latter. To do this, we must first have three capabilities:

The first is satellite anti-missile capability. This ability will lead to a serious reliance on informatized opponents, making them blind, defamatory, and dumb, so that they can only return to the level of World War II to compete with conventional forces.

The second is the ability to remotely play. You must ensure that you have the ability to sink high-priced targets like aircraft carriers. If such a high-priced target is sunk, it will seriously undermine the confidence of investors around the world against the opponent, so that the capital does not dare to invest in it again, resulting in a serious war financing dilemma for the opponent. This is the national weakness of the opponent’s combat planners who are not aware of it. The confidence of the sinking aircraft carrier in global investors will be a huge blow, which will interrupt the opponent’s global capital chain.

The third is that there must be a network space combat capability. Especially the ability to attack any network system of the opponent. If China and the powerful opponents are really fighting, you must demonstrate your ability and determination to attack and smash all of the grid system from the very beginning. This is a necessary way to contain war by deterrence.

The reason is always easier said than done. How to get the power of the network in the future war, or to offset the advantage of the opponent’s network warfare? It is necessary to make yourself technological progress. But what is more necessary is the progress of thinking. The long history of evolution proves that human beings are not always in a state of thought progress in the coordinate system of time. Degradation will happen from time to time. The degradation of thinking is sad, but consciously pull the pair back to the “old battlefield”, that is, to offset the opponent’s informational combat capability, so that the opponent’s technical advantage is lost, and thus with us to return to a certain historical stage of combat, At that time, it is a feasible idea to give full play to my own advantages.

(The author is a professor at the National Defense University)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

近半個世紀以來,電子技術、信息技術以令人瞠目的速度迅猛發展,並因此全面改變了現代戰爭的風貌。儘管人們在談論戰爭的維度時,習慣於陸海空天電的排序,但從軍事技術層面講,“電子戰”“網絡戰”所構成的“網電空間戰”能力,卻毫無疑問已後來居上,成為第一戰鬥力。誰能主導電子戰,誰就能主宰戰場。可惜的是,這一結論至今還未能被各國軍隊普遍接受。

刻舟求劍,是對人們的認識滯後於事物的演變和發展的形象寫照。時至今日,當以電子技術和芯片技術為標誌的這一輪軍事革命,因技術日臻成熟,潛力逼近極限而漸近尾聲時,大多數國家的軍人對一個小小的電子管和更小的芯片就能改變戰爭的風貌,還沒做好充分接納的精神和知識準備。這對生活在信息化時代的人類,特別是掌握著信息化武器的軍隊來說,不能不說是一種諷刺。

世界外觀所呈現的個體性表徵,使人們憑直覺把整個世界區分成各個部分去認知和理解。即便電子技術、信息技術早已把整個世界都納入了網電空間而焊接成了一“域”,人們仍然習慣於將其切分成不同的“域”塊。如不少囿於傳統思維的軍人,就想當然地把作戰空間切分成陸、海、空、天、電五大維度,並以為自己將在這五種維度下作戰。而網電空間戰場,在他們看來,只不過是其中的一維。甚至在聯合作戰這一試圖把五維空間打通成一體的概念中,網電空間戰也只是其中一種作戰領域和作戰樣式而已,全然不懂大千世界已然被“信息化”了。這樣的滯後思維不可能跟上技術飛躍的步伐:舟已遠離湖面,劍卻沉在了湖底。能在未來戰場上穩操勝券者,一定是把全部戰場作為一個整體觀察和思考、操作並控制的軍隊。只有如此,才能找到打開胜利之門的鑰匙:誰能控製網電空間,誰就能控制戰場;誰能在網電空間戰中佔上風,誰就是戰爭的贏家。這是現代戰爭發展到今天誰也無法逆轉的大趨勢。

電子戰(今日已衍化成為信息戰或網電空間戰)是一切現代戰鬥、戰役乃至戰爭的前提。與此相比,制空權、制海權,甚至制陸權與製天權,都已向製網電權拱手交出了未來戰場的第一制權。何況制天權的爭奪本身就是製網電權的一部分。套用鄧小平的一句話說,現代戰爭,“沒有製空權,什麼仗都打不下來”。是的,未來戰爭,沒有製網電權,什麼仗都打不下來。

今天,提出要用“空海一體戰”構想遏制中國的美軍,是一架幾乎全面信息化了的軍事機器。因此,美軍深知信息化是其所長,亦是其所短。短就短在誰具備網電空間戰優勢,誰就能製約美軍。有人會問,難道從軍事角度講,網電空間戰真的那麼重要,以至於讓人認為比火力硬殺傷更重要嗎?是的,這正是筆者的回答。因為當你的對手已全維信息化後,它要么先勝於與對手的網電空間戰,要么先敗於此戰,其後的火力戰,只是對還不肯認輸的對手進行從心理摧毀到物理消解的過程。

為什麼網電空間戰如此重要?實際上,我們的主要對手其全部的長處就在於全維信息化,而其全部的短處也在於過度信息化。信息化的短處就是無一處無芯片,從而形成芯片依賴。芯片讓武器平台彈藥如虎添翼變得強大,而其自身卻也極端脆弱。一枚電磁脈衝炸彈,就可以讓在它爆炸覆蓋範圍內的所有電子元件被毀失能。這種場景讓用芯片武裝到牙齒的對手很恐懼。而對我們來說,讓對手恐懼的東西,就應該是我們要優先側重發展的武器。

如果跟全維信息化對手交手,對手最擔心的是:一被網攻癱瘓網絡,二被天戰摧毀天基系統。因為這將使其一切武器平台的硬件優勢都變得沒有意義。儘管我們的對手同樣也有這種能力,但一旦雙方都動用這種能力將對手癱瘓,那就意味著,對陣雙方將一起退回二戰水平。那時,誰具有人口優勢,誰有資源優勢,誰有製造業優勢,誰就有戰爭優勢。

看清這一點,有助於我們擺脫某種悖論:越了解對手的軍事系統,就越擔心自身軍事系統存在的差距,越承認差距,就越想學習追趕對手,結果就是對手有什麼,我就也要有什麼。最終把自己逼上一條以對手之長,攻對手之長的死路。這條路怎麼可能把我們引向“能打仗,打勝仗”?古今中外,凡勝仗,無一不是以我之長攻敵之短,即便是硬仗也是以我之長攻敵之長,未見有以敵之長攻敵之長而取勝者。何況,取勝於未來戰爭,不能以不惜一切代價獲勝為目的。對於中國來說,還應該有一個與勝利同樣重要的要求,武器裝備發展,作戰方案製定,都要考慮如何降低成本。決不能對手有什麼,我們就一定要有什麼。乞丐跟龍王爺比寶不行,變成土豪了,也不能跟龍王爺比寶。今天,我們對如何打贏信息化條件下局部戰爭的整體想法是存在某種認知缺陷的,總是自覺不自覺地以為打高技術戰爭就是打高成本戰爭,總想和對手一樣去比成本、拼成本。

實際上,我們完全可以換一種思路,那就是走低成本路線。有沒有重型航母,有沒有X37,有沒有全球快速打擊系統,對手並不在乎。它只在乎你能不能摧毀它的衛星系統,癱瘓它的網絡系統。畢竟,攻擊衛星武器和電磁脈衝炸彈的工具和手段都不是很昂貴、很稀缺,而其效果將是低成本、高收益。我們斷不能因為擔心自己與對手的差距,就不由自主地陷入跟對手的軍備競賽中。

美國人在“空海一體戰”構想中說,“我們要通過這個方式,把中國拖入到與我們的競賽,讓中國人把更多的精力都投入到東風21D等諸如此類導彈的生產中去,然後用大量的誘餌和欺騙迫使中國人大量地把這些武器消耗到沒有意義的方向”。對此,國內有人寫了一篇文章,提醒“我們要防止掉入美國陷阱”,這本身沒有錯,但仍然屬於只知其一,不知其二。要知道,此類文章出來以後,很有可能導致我們的認識產生新的偏差,因為上述美國人的話語中存在“陷阱的陷阱(即雙重陷阱)”。首先,它企圖將中國軍隊引誘到軍備競賽的陷阱中來。如果你跟美軍進行競賽,你就會耗費大量財力物力尾隨美軍而不得超越;其次,如果你意識到這是陷阱而放棄競賽,你又立刻就會掉入另一個陷阱:由於放棄軍備競賽而自廢武功。對中國來說,如果我們既不願意跟對手競賽,又不願意自廢武功,那我們應該怎麼辦?結論是,我們只能走自己的路。

發展我們自己之長,發展對我最有利的東西,最好以我之長,克敵之短。起碼也要以我之長,克敵之長。以我之短克敵之長不行,以敵之長克敵之長同樣也不行。以敵之長攻敵之長,你將永無勝算。

看看“空海一體戰”最主要的設計:開場就是打擊你的天基系統,讓你致盲;接著打“偵察戰”,讓你致聾;然後才來跟你正式開打常規戰。

這種情形下,我們怎麼辦?是被動接招,兵來將擋,水來土掩?還是揚我所長,以低成本手段,換取對手高價值目標?當然是後者。為此,我們必須先具備三種能力:

第一種是衛星反導能力。這種能力將一擊致癱嚴重依賴信息化的對手,使其致盲、致聾、致啞,從而只能與你一道退回二戰水平去比拼常規戰力。

第二種是遠程精打能力。必須確保你有能力擊沉類似航母這樣的高價目標。這樣的高價目標如果被擊沉,將沉重地打擊全世界投資人對對手的信心,使資本不敢再投向它,造成對手嚴重的戰爭融資困境。這是對手的作戰計劃人員沒有意識到的國家軟肋。擊沉航母對全球投資人的信心將是一個巨大的打擊,從而將打斷對手的全球資本循環鏈。

第三種是必須有網電空間作戰能力。特別是對對手的任何網絡系統攻擊的能力。如果中國和遠比自己強大的對手真的發生戰爭,你必須從一開始就展示你有攻擊並癱瘓其全部網電系統的能力和決心,這是用威懾遏制戰爭的必要方式。

道理,總是說起來容易做起來難。如何在未來戰爭中拿到製網電權,或者對沖掉對手的網電戰優勢?讓自己獲得技術進步是必須的。但更必須的,是思維的進步。漫長的進化史證明,人類在時間的坐標系上,並不總是處於思維進步狀態。退化,會不時發生。思維的退化是可悲的,但有意識地把對手拉回“舊戰場”,即對沖掉對手的信息化作戰能力,讓對手的技術優勢盡失,從而與我們一道退回某一歷史階段的作戰水平,屆時,盡情發揮我自身優勢,則不失為一種可行的思路。

(作者係國防大學教授)

Original Referring URL: http://www.81.cn/jkhc/2014-12/

 

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit // 中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit //

中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

June 01, 2004 08:58
  If the 1991 Gulf War was the first time that the United States brought information warfare from the research report to the actual battlefield, then the Iraq war that ended last year may be the further development of information warfare in actual combat. Information warfare, as the focus of the new military revolution in the 21st century, has increasingly attracted people’s attention. However, through the information campaign to study the lively scenes, we will find that quite a few people only understand information warfare from the perspective of military and technology alone, but information warfare is not so simple. 

  Information warfare is a new emergence of human beings entering the information age. a phenomenon of war. It is not a simple style of warfare, but a new form of warfare relative to firepower. The emergence of information warfare has formed a major breakthrough in many traditional war concepts such as the object of war, the boundaries of war, and the content of war. Among them, the focus should be on the ideological and spiritual side of information warfare. 

  What you see is only the tip of the iceberg 

  . There are dozens of concepts about information warfare in the world. However, many of them only understand information warfare from the military and technical perspectives. Even the United States, which is in the leading position of information warfare, is only from the last It was only at the end of the century that this issue was considered from a strategic and social point of view. This is not comprehensive. An important prerequisite for understanding information warfare is that information warfare should not be viewed simply with the war view of the industrial age. In the information age, computers and networks have dramatically changed the shape of war in the past. In the information war, the army and the society, the military and civilians, the war and the crime, the state and the individual have been intertwined in many cases, and they are unclear and unreasonable. 

  Information warfare broadly refers to the war against the information space and the competition for information resources in the military (including political, economic, cultural, scientific, and social fields). It mainly refers to the use of information to achieve the national strategic goals; narrowly Refers to the confrontation between the warring parties in the armed field in the field of information, and seizes the right to control the information. It should be emphasized that information warfare is not a simple military technical issue and should not be understood as a combat style. Information warfare is actually a form of war.

  The term “information” is understood relative to the times, and corresponds to the agricultural and industrial eras; in terms of social forms, it is also in line with agricultural and industrial societies. At the same time, it is one of the three major resources that human beings must compare with matter and energy. Investigating information warfare, only by knowing at this level can we reveal information warfare in the true sense. 

  The rise of information warfare lies not in what kind of nouns it uses, nor in the war nouns. It is as simple as the buzzwords of “information,” “information,” “information age,” and “digitalization.” It is the inevitable result of the development of society and science and technology, with revolutionary and epoch-making significance. The information wars that emerged at the end of the 20th century, or the information wars we have seen, are only the tip of the iceberg, and are only partial and limited information wars embodied in the military field. Only when the world reaches full network and the earth becomes a small village in the true sense can we see the broad and real information war. 

  Information warfare is not just  about the military. When it comes to information warfare, people often think of the army first. Indeed, in the traditional war, the army is the protagonist of the war, and the battlefield is also the stage of the military. Under the conditions of information warfare, the situation is very different. The scope of the battlefield has greatly expanded, and the war has become far more than just military affairs, but has developed into a national war under high-tech conditions. Information warfare is not only carried out through the military, but also through the entire social network. With the construction of the world information highway, information warfare has been difficult to define boundaries. Any social NGO or even an individual who has ordinary computer equipment and masters computer communication technology may use a globally connected computer and communication system to participate in an information war. 

  The information warfare is not only the main manifestation of the army: First, the participants in the information war are no longer limited to military personnel, but also include ordinary people. Information warfare combatants can be either regular soldiers or teenage hackers. Second, many of the weapons and equipment used in information warfare, such as computers and optical instruments, can no longer be military supplies, and are available in the civilian goods market. Take the United States, an information war powerhouse, as an example. The US military’s information warfare system relies heavily on civilian information infrastructure. Senior US military personnel referred to the informationization of the US military’s military as “buy from the market.” Third, information warfare is not only on the battlefield, but on the entire society. “The battlefield is only where the soldiers are killed. It no longer covers information warfare.”

  Information warfare is not only played in wartime. 


  Since the war, the attackers launched wars, and the defenders resisted aggression, and they must be prepared for war. In particular, mechanized warfare has shown obvious phase and proceduralization. In the war of information age, the boundaries between war preparation and implementation are increasingly blurred and even mixed. Looking around the world, it is not difficult to find that information powers are fighting almost every day: public opinion, intelligence confrontation, network reconnaissance, and so on. These are actually information wars that have transformed form, and can be called public opinion warfare, intelligence warfare, and cyber warfare. 

  In the Iraq war, the power of public opinion wars opened the eyes of the world. It has been said that the “discussion war”, one of the forms of information warfare, has been going on since the war. Earlier cases of “public opinion wars” can be traced back to the “Oath of the Oath” of China’s Xia Dynasty and later “Looking for Cao Yuwen” and “Discussing Wushu”. The “discussion of public opinion” has no boundaries between wartime and peace. It controls, manipulates, plans, and utilizes various public opinion tools to systematically deliver selected information to the audience, affecting the audience’s emotions, motivations, judgments, and choices, thus having a major and direct impact on the outcome of the war. As for the information warfare and cyber warfare in the information war, it is even more ignoring the difference between wartime and peacetime. At that time, the US Clinton Administration put forward the idea of ​​building an information highway and promoting global informationization. This move has made the world believe that the United States is leading the human society into the information age. However, the strategic intention of the United States is actually that when the informationization of human society is still in a blank, it will expand the information territory of the United States in order to occupy the opportunity of informationization. As a result, the future development of global informationization will follow the US road map. The United States can integrate the countries of the world into the informatization map of the United States. Looking at it now, this strategic attempt by the United States is far more effective than winning a war of blood and hurricanes.

  When information warfare is not only a battle, this is not only manifested in the blurring of the preparation and implementation of information warfare, especially in the attack of information warfare on people’s thoughts and spirit. The formation of thoughts and spirits is a subtle process. Through the information superiority, we can achieve the goal of “no war and defeated soldiers” or “less war and defeated soldiers”. The general approach is to use information superiority to create contrast between the enemy and the enemy, use psychological warfare and strategic deception to shake, frustrate the enemy’s military, people’s hearts and government beliefs, and destroy the enemy’s normal political and economic operation system. Means can put the enemy in a state of paralysis, curb the will of the hostile country to wage war, or deprive it of its ability to war. 

  In the 1980s, the scenes of the US-Soviet confrontation were very interesting. Reagan, the US president who is good at acting, has proposed an aggressive “Star Wars” plan, claiming to make all the strategic nuclear missiles of the Soviet Union useless. As soon as the plan was announced, the United States started to promote all the propaganda machines and caused a great sensation in the world. The Soviet leaders convened an emergency meeting in succession and decided to resolutely respond to the blood and establish a strategic defense shield of the Soviet Union. In fact, the “Star Wars” program in the United States only carried out a little bit of technical experimentation. It didn’t cost much at all, but a movie of the same name “Star Ball” was popular in the world. However, the Soviets were very hardworking and hard work. When the national economy was on the verge of collapse, the vast ruble was still thrown into the arms race. The Soviet Union, which had been unable to do so, ran out of the last drop of blood after seven years. It cannot be said that the collapse of the Soviet economy and the collapse of the regime were not dragged down by the US information war. 

  Paying attention to the people’s war that defends the boundaries of 

  information. Under the conditions of information warfare, national sovereignty has a new content. The extension of national security has expanded and its connotation has become more abundant. The influence of information warfare is no longer limited to the military field, but radiates to the whole. Human society. Under the conditions of information warfare, the important magic weapon for a weak country to defeat a powerful country is the people’s war. Only by insisting on the people’s war under the conditions of information warfare can we effectively defend the national information territory and safeguard national information sovereignty. In addition to information technology and tactics, the most important thing is to grasp the construction of the information talent team and build the two lines of the national spirit defense line in the information age. 

  Those who have talents are in the world. The outcome of the information warfare depends to a large extent on human factors, and must be supported by a large number of high-tech information warfare personnel.

  In the information warfare, a small number of top information talents can often play a key role in the outcome of the war. During the Second World War, in order to grab a German atomic physicist, the US military changed the direction of the attack of the three Army divisions. After the end of World War II, the history of “the wise man grabbed the people, the fools took the device” was even more intriguing. In the East, the Soviets were busy carrying the seized tanks and cannons; in the West, Americans hurriedly transported more than 3,000 German scientists back home. More than half a century has passed, and the country that grabbed talents is still continuing to write a history of robbing people, and its economy, technology and military are incomprehensible. The country that robbed the weapon was now facing the reality of being robbed. After the disintegration, the Soviet Union had tens of thousands of outstanding scientific and technological talents to change their positions to serve the opponents of the year. As a commanding height of military struggle, the struggle for talents is more decisive in the military contest of the information age. 

  Compared with the “hard killing” brought about by information warfare, the “soft killing” of information warfare is even more terrible. The spiritual realm is the most “window of vulnerability” under the conditions of information warfare. 

  As information technology becomes more developed, channels become more and more fluent, and information sources are more extensive. People will get more and more information and get information faster and faster. The means of modernization have transmitted the information to be transmitted to the countries of the world effectively without any restrictions. At present, developed countries pay great attention to using their advanced information technology to establish a global network of radio, television, and computer networks, thereby exporting their political opinions and values ​​on a large scale and expanding the information frontier. As a result, countries with backward informationization have been subjected to a strong spiritual impact. Therefore, in order to win the people’s war under the conditions of information warfare, from the individual, the media, the army to the whole country, we must comprehensively enhance the awareness of information and national defense, establish the concept of defending the national information territory and information boundary, and consciously build an invisible spiritual defense line. 

  Related Links 

  Scanning the overall situation of the world information war It 

  can be said that the development of the world information warfare has gone through three stages. 

  The first stage: the period of information warfare before the Gulf War in 1991; the 

  second stage: the implementation and maturity of the information war after the Gulf War to 1998; the 

  third stage: the development period of the information warfare after 1998 .

  At present, the new military revolution triggered by information warfare is still going on around the world. The transformation of mechanized warfare into information warfare has been fully carried out in the world. The armed forces of major countries around the world are adjusting their strategies and tactics, preparing equipment, and combat training in accordance with the information warfare, in preparation for winning information warfare. All the wars after the Gulf War have been marked with traces of information warfare. The power of information warfare is impacting all areas of society. 

  Information warfare techniques and techniques click 

  Currently, the world’s countries in the application and development of information warfare technology are mainly: 

  1. Reconnaissance and surveillance technology. Various means of reconnaissance, surveillance, early warning and navigation, including space-based, space-based, sea-based and foundation. 

  2. Platform integrated information warfare system. Realize radar warning, missile launch and attack alarm, information support, information interference and avoidance, and synergistic integration, and integrate with other information equipment on the platform to achieve information sharing. 

  3. Network command and control warfare technology. 4. Computer virus technology. 

  5. Attacking weapons technology. Including electromagnetic pulse weapons, ultrasonic weapons and infrasound weapons. 6. Advanced electronic countermeasures technology. 

  The latest information warfare equipment glimpse 

  In the development of information warfare weapons, in recent years, the following equipments have been developed or put into active service in various countries. 

  1. The Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System is a battlefield information processing system that accurately detects moving and fixed targets to cope with the implementation of long-range precision strikes, and provides commanders with important information about combat development and combat management. 

  2. The Joint Tactical Air-to-Ground Information Station is a weapon support system that processes the vital information needed for space-based sensor data and operational capabilities for early warning missile launches. 

  3. A beam-energy weapon can penetrate targets hundreds of kilometers or even thousands of kilometers in an instant without leaving a “hard injury”, especially for the direct destruction of high-precision guided high-tech weapons. Therefore, it is considered to be tactical air defense and anti-armor. Optoelectronic countermeasures and even strategic anti-missile, anti-satellite, anti-satellite, multi-purpose ideal weapon for all spacecraft.

  4. Smart warfare, woven with a fiber optic network and a conductive polymer network, and a miniature measurement system that monitors the soldier’s physical condition. In the future battlefield, a soldier was injured. At the moment of his fall, the medical staff at the ambulance center can accurately determine whether it is a bullet or a knife wound, where the injured part is, and other basic injuries. 

  In addition, there are military robots, shipboard electronic warfare systems, high-power RF amplifier technology, advanced antenna technology and signal processing technology. 

  The information 

  warfare is fiercely competitive. Looking at the world, more than 20 countries including Britain, France, Israel, and Russia have conducted in-depth research on information warfare. The development of information warfare in the United States is at the forefront of the world, mainly in technology, equipment, and theory. 

  United States: The information war strategy was changed from defense to attack. In order to improve the US military’s information warfare technical capabilities, the US Department of Defense has a specialized information system processing agency responsible for maintaining the 2.5 million computers used by the US military. It is also studying how to improve the attack capabilities of computers and create communication networks and financial systems that destroy hostile countries. And the intrusion of the power system. As early as the fall of 2000, the US Space Command Center began to develop aggressive computer weapons. This means a major adjustment in the US military’s information war strategy—from strategic defense to strategic attack. 

  Russia: The focus of information warfare is on “Heavenly Soldiers.” The development of information warfare in Russia has concentrated on the development of “Heavenly Soldiers” — the astronauts. In 2002, Russia invested about 31.6 billion rubles for space research, 5.4 billion rubles for the development of global navigation systems, and strengthened the development of lasers, high-power microwaves and anti-satellite weapons. 

  Japan: Accelerate the formation of information warfare units. The Japanese Defense Agency is forming an information warfare force of 5,000 people, focusing on the development of cyber weapons as the focus of future defense plans, and speeding up the construction of the Japanese Army’s digital forces.

  EU and other Western countries: embarking on the construction of digital troops. Countries such as France, Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden are also developing platforms and individual C4I systems. More than 10 countries, including France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, and Israel, are embarking on the implementation of digital military and digital battlefield construction plans. Among them, most countries are concentrating human and financial resources to develop the equipment needed for digital units, and a few countries in the past have conducted several digital force test exercises. In the future, while the above-mentioned countries continue to develop the digital “hardware” of the battlefield, they will begin to consider the composition of the digital units, and more countries will join the ranks of the digital construction of the troops.  

Source: China National Defense News

Original Mandarin Chinese:

如果說,1991年的海灣戰爭是美國第一次把信息戰從研究報告中搬上實戰戰場,那麼去年結束的伊拉克戰爭也許就是信息戰在實戰中的進一步發展。信息戰,作為21世紀新軍事革命狂飆的重心,已經越來越引起人們的重視。然而,透過信息戰研究熱鬧的場面,我們會發現,相當多的人們只是從單純軍事和技術的角度認識信息戰的,但信息戰其實並不這麼簡單——

信息戰是人類進入信息時代新出現的一種戰爭現象。它不是一種簡單的作戰樣式,而是相對於火力戰的一種新的戰爭形態。信息戰的出現對諸如戰爭對象、戰爭界限、戰爭內容等許多傳統戰爭理念都形成了重大突破,其中尤其應該引起關注的是信息戰攻擊思想和精神的一面。

看到的只是冰山一角

目前世界上關於信息戰的概念有幾十種,然而,很多卻只是單純從軍事和技術的角度來認識信息戰的,即使處於信息戰領先地位的美國也只是從上個世紀末才開始從戰略高度和社會意義上思考這個問題,這很不全面。認識信息戰的一個重要前提是,不應該簡單地用工業時代的戰爭觀來看待信息戰。信息時代,電腦和網絡大大改變了以往的戰爭形態。信息戰中,軍隊與社會、軍人與平民、戰爭與犯罪、國家與個人在很多情況下已經交織在一起,分不清,理還亂。

信息戰廣義地指對壘的軍事(也包括政治、經濟、文化、科技及社會一切領域)集團搶佔信息空間和爭奪信息資源的戰爭,主要是指利用信息達成國家大戰略目標的行動﹔狹義地是指武力戰中交戰雙方在信息領域的對抗,奪取制信息權。需要強調的是,信息戰不是一個簡單的軍事技術問題,不應該被理解為一種作戰樣式。信息戰實際上是一種戰爭形態。

“信息”這個名詞相對於時代來理解,是與農業時代、工業時代相對應的﹔就社會形態而言,又是與農業社會、工業社會相呼應。同時,它又是與物質、能量相提並論的人類必須的三大資源之一。考察信息戰,隻有從這個層次上去認識,才能揭示真正意義上的信息戰。

信息戰的崛起不在於它用了什麼樣的名詞,也不是戰爭名詞上冠以“信息化 ”、“信息”、“信息時代”、“數字化”這些時髦的詞藻那麼簡單。它是社會和科技發展的必然結果,帶有革命性、劃時代的意義。 20世紀末出現的信息戰,或者說我們已經看到的信息戰只是冰山之一角,僅僅是體現在軍事領域中的局部和有限的信息戰。隻有當世界達到全面網絡化,地球成為真正意義上的小村落時,我們才能看到那種廣義上、真正的信息戰。

信息戰不隻靠軍隊打

一提起打信息戰,人們往往首先就想到軍隊。確實,傳統戰爭中,軍隊是戰爭的主角,戰場也主要是軍人的舞台。信息戰條件下,情況則大不一樣。戰場的範疇大大擴展,戰爭變得遠遠不只是軍隊的事情,而是發展成高技術條件下的全民戰。信息戰不只是通過軍隊,同時也可以通過全社會網絡來實施。隨著世界信息高速公路的建設,信息戰已難以劃定界限。任何社會民間組織甚至個人隻要擁有普通計算機設備、掌握計算機通訊技術,都有可能利用全球聯網的計算機與通信系統參與一場信息戰。

信息戰不隻打軍隊主要表現在:第一,信息戰的參與者不再僅限於軍人,而且還包括普通民眾。信息戰作戰人員既可以是正規軍人,也可以是十幾歲的少年黑客。第二,信息戰所使用的許多武器裝備,如計算機、光學儀器等可以不再是軍用品,在民用品市場上都可買到。以信息戰強國美國為例,美軍的信息戰系統在很大程度上依賴民用信息基礎設施。美國軍方高層人士把美軍軍隊信息化變革稱為“從市場上買來的”。第三,信息戰作戰不單在戰場,而是分佈於整個社會。 “戰場只是士兵陣亡的地方,已不再囊括信息戰交戰場所。”

信息戰不隻在戰時打

自有戰爭以來,進攻者發動戰爭,防御者抵禦侵略,都要進行周密的戰爭準備。特別是機械化戰爭,呈現出明顯的階段性、程序化。而信息時代的戰爭,戰爭準備與實施的界限則日趨模糊,甚至混為一體。環顧世界,不難發現,信息強國幾乎每天都在進行戰爭:輿論宣傳、情報對抗、網絡偵察等等。這些實際上都是轉化了形式的信息戰,可以稱之為輿論戰、情報戰、網絡戰。

伊拉克戰爭中,輿論戰的威力讓世人大開眼界。有人說,作為信息戰作戰形式之一的“輿論戰”自有戰爭以來就一直在進行著。進行“輿論戰”的較早案例甚至可以追溯到中國夏朝的《甘誓》以及後來的《討曹檄文》與《討武檄文》。 “輿論戰”的進行完全沒有戰時與平時的界限。它通過控制、操縱、策劃、利用各種輿論工具,有計劃地向受眾傳遞經過選擇的信息,影響受眾的情感、動機、判斷和抉擇,從而對戰爭結果產生重大而直接的影響。至於信息戰中的情報戰、網絡戰就更是無視戰時與平時的分別了。當年,美國克林頓政府提出了構建信息高速公路、推進全球信息化的主張。此舉曾讓世人認為美國正在引領人類社會步入信息化時代。然而,美國的戰略意圖其實是趁人類社會的信息化尚處於一片空白之時,跑馬圈地,擴張美國的信息疆域,以期佔住信息化的先機。如此一來,全球信息化未來的發展就將按美國的路線圖行進。美國可以一舉將世界各國納入美國規劃的信息化版圖。現在看,美國的這一戰略企圖,其成效已遠遠勝於贏得一場硝煙彌漫、血雨腥風的戰爭。

信息戰不隻打戰時,這不僅表現為信息戰戰爭的準備與實施界限模糊,尤其體現在信息戰對人的思想和精神的攻擊上。思想和精神的形成是一個潛移默化的過程,通過信息優勢可以達成“不戰而屈人之兵”或“少戰而屈人之兵”的目標。其一般做法是:利用信息優勢在敵我之間製造反差,運用心理戰和戰略欺騙等手段,動搖、沮喪敵方軍心、民心和政府信念,破壞敵方正常的政治、經濟運行體系,通過上述手段可以使敵國處於癱瘓狀態,遏制敵對國家發動戰爭的意志,或使其喪失戰爭能力。

上個世紀80年代美蘇對峙中的一幕場景很值得人玩味。擅長演戲的美國總統裡根提出了一個咄咄逼人的“星球大戰”計劃,號稱要讓蘇聯的所有戰略核導彈失去作用。該計劃一宣布,美國就開動全部的宣傳機器拼命鼓吹,在全世界引起了巨大轟動。蘇聯領導人連續召開緊急會議,決定不惜血本堅決應對,建立起蘇聯的戰略防禦盾牌。其實,美國的“星球大戰”計劃隻進行了星星點點的技術實驗,壓根就沒有花多少錢,倒是一部同名的《星球大球》的電影風靡世界。而蘇聯人卻非常認真地埋頭苦幹,在國民經濟已經瀕臨崩潰的情況下,仍然把大把的盧布投向軍備競賽。本來已經力不從心的蘇聯在7年之後流盡了最後一滴血。不能說,蘇聯經濟的崩潰及政權的垮台沒有受美國信息戰的拖累。

關注保衛信息邊界的人民戰爭

在信息戰條件下,國家主權有了新的內容,國家安全的外延擴大了、內涵更豐富了,信息戰的影響也不再僅僅局限於軍事領域,而且輻射到整個人類社會。在信息戰條件下,弱國戰勝強國的重要法寶就是人民戰爭。隻有堅持打信息戰條件下的人民戰爭才能切實保衛國家信息疆域,維護國家信息主權。這其中除了信息技術和戰法等因素外,最主要的是抓住信息人才隊伍建設與構築信息時代的全民精神防線兩個環節。

得人才者興天下。信息戰的戰果如何,在很大程度上取決於人的因素,必須有大量的高技術信息戰人才作支撐。

在信息戰中,為數不多的頂尖信息人才往往能對戰爭的勝負起到關鍵作用。二戰期間,美軍為了把一個德國原子物理學家搶到手,竟然將3個陸軍師的進攻方向作了改變。二戰結束後那段“智者搶人,愚者奪器”的歷史更是耐人尋味。在東方,蘇聯人忙著搬運繳獲來的坦克大砲﹔在西方,美國人卻急急把3000多名德國科學家運回國內。半個多世紀過去了,當年搶人才的國家如今仍然在續寫著搶人的歷史,其經濟、科技和軍事不可一世。當年搶兵器的國家如今則在無奈地面對著被搶的現實。解體後的蘇聯有上萬名優秀科技人才改換門庭,服務於當年的對手。人才之爭作為軍事鬥爭的一個制高點,在信息時代的軍事較量中,更具有決定性的意義。

與信息戰所帶來的“硬殺傷”相比,信息戰的“軟殺傷”更為可怕。信息戰條件下精神領域是最“易受攻擊之窗”。

隨著信息技術越來越發達,信道越來越流暢,信息來源更為廣泛,人們獲取的信息將越來越多,獲取信息的速度也越來越快。現代化的傳播手段把所要傳遞的信息幾乎不受任何限制,有效地傳到世界各國。當前,發達國家十分注意利用它們的先進信息技術,建立覆蓋全球的廣播、電視、計算機網絡,藉此大規模輸出其政治主張和價值觀念,擴充信息疆域。其結果是信息化發展落後的國家受到強烈的精神沖擊。因此,要想打贏信息戰條件下的人民戰爭,從個人、媒體、軍隊到整個國家都必須全面增強信息國防意識,樹立保衛國家信息疆域和信息邊界的觀念,自覺築起無形的精神防線。

相關鏈接

世界信息戰總體形勢掃描

可以認為,世界信息戰的發展經歷了3個階段。

第一階段:1991年海灣戰爭以前信息戰的醞釀和提出時期﹔

第二階段:海灣戰爭後至1998年前信息戰的實施和成熟時期﹔

第三階段:1998年後至今遏制信息戰的發展時期。

當前,信息戰引發的新軍事革命仍在全球進行。機械化戰爭向信息戰的轉變已在全球全面展開。全世界各主要國家的軍隊正按照信息戰思想調整戰略戰術、編制裝備、作戰訓練等,為打贏信息戰作準備。海灣戰爭以後的所有戰爭無不烙上信息戰的痕跡。信息戰的威力正沖擊著社會的各個領域。

信息戰實戰技法點擊

當前,世界各國在信息戰技術手段的應用與發展上主要有:

1.偵察監視技術。包括天基、空基、海基和地基在內的各種偵察、監視、預警、導航等手段。

2.平台一體化信息戰系統。實現雷達告警、導彈發射和攻擊告警、信息支援、信息幹擾及規避、協同一體化,而且與平台上其他信息設備綜合為一體,達成信息共享。

3.網絡指揮控制戰技術。 4.計算機病毒技術。

5.攻心武器技術。包括電磁脈沖武器、超聲波武器和次聲波武器。 6.先進電子對抗技術。

最新信息戰裝備掠影

在信息戰武器發展上,近年來各國研製或已投入現役的主要有以下裝備。

1.聯合監視與目標攻擊雷達系統,是一種戰場信息處理系統,能精確探測移動的和固定的目標,以配合實施遠距離精確打擊,還能向指揮官提供有關戰況發展和戰鬥管理的重要情報。

2.聯合戰術空對地信息站,是一種武器支援系統,能處理供預警導彈發射用的天基傳感器數據、作戰能力所需的重要信息。

3.束能武器,能在瞬間穿透數百公裡甚至數千公裡外的目標而不留下“硬傷”,尤其對精確制導高技術武器有直接的破壞作用,因此被認為是戰術防空、反裝甲、光電對抗乃至戰略反導、反衛星、反一切航天器的多功能理想武器。

4.智能戰衣,編織有光纖網絡和導電聚合網絡,並有監視士兵身體狀態的微型測量系統。在未來戰場上,一名士兵受了傷,就在其倒地的瞬間,救護中心的醫務人員就能準確判斷出是彈傷還是刀傷、受傷部位在何處以及其他基本傷情。

此外,還有軍用機器人、艦載電子戰系統、強功率射頻放大器技術、先進的天線技術和信號處理技術等等。

信息戰國力競爭激烈

放眼世界,現在已有英國、法國、以色列、俄羅斯等20多個國家對信息戰展開深入研究。美國信息戰發展走在世界前列,主要體現在技術、裝備、理論等方面。

美國:信息戰戰略由防轉攻。為了提高美軍信息戰技術能力,美國國防部有專門信息系統處理機構負責維護美國軍方使用的250萬台電腦,並在抓緊研究如何提高電腦的攻擊能力,製造破壞敵對國的通信網絡、金融系統及電力系統的入侵病毒。早在2000年秋天,美國太空指揮中心已開始研製攻擊性電腦武器。這意味著美軍信息戰戰略的重大調整———由戰略防禦轉向戰略進攻。

俄羅斯:信息戰重心在“天兵”。俄羅斯的信息戰發展集中力量發展“天兵 ”———航天兵。 2002年俄羅斯投入約316億盧布用於太空專項研究,54億盧布用於全球導航系統的研發,還加強了激光、高功率微波和反衛星武器的研製。

日本:加快組建信息戰部隊。日本防衛廳正在組建5000人規模的信息戰部隊,把網絡武器的開發作為今后防衛計劃的重點,並加快了日本陸軍數字化部隊的建設。

歐盟和其他西方國家:著手數字化部隊建設。法、德、英、加、澳、荷蘭和瑞典等國也在研製平台和單兵的C4I系統。法國、英國、德國、澳大利亞、加拿大、意大利、以色列等10多個國家都在著手執行數字化部隊和數字化戰場建設計劃。其中,多數國家正在集中人力財力開發數字化部隊所需要的裝備,少數走在前面的國家已進行過多次數字化部隊試驗演習。今後,上述國家在繼續開發戰場數字化“硬件”的同時,將開始考慮數字化部隊的編成結構,並將有更多的國家加入部隊數字化建設的行列。

來源:中國國防報

Original Referring URL: http://people.com.cn/BIG5/junshi/1078/

 

 

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //

中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

■ cyberspace is easy to attack and defend, traditional passive defense is difficult to effectively deal with organized high-intensity attacks

■ Improve network security, the defense side can not rely solely on the technology game, but also need to win the counterattack on the concept

The new “Thirty-six” of network security

  ■Chen Sen

点击进入下一页

Fisher

  News reason

  In the information age, cybersecurity has taken the lead in national security. The Outline of the National Informatization Development Strategy emphasizes that it should actively adapt to the new changes in the national security situation, new trends in information technology development, and new requirements for strong military objectives, build an information security defense system, and comprehensively improve the ability to win localized information warfare. Cyberspace has become a new field that affects national security, social stability, economic development and cultural communication. Cyberspace security has become an important topic of increasing concern to the international community.

  The United States has clearly declared that cyberspace is a new field of operations, and has significantly expanded its network command and combat forces to continue to focus on cyberspace weapons development. Since entering the summer, the US military network exercises have been one after another, and the invisible wars are filled with smoke. At the beginning of March, “Network Storm 5” took the lead in kicking off the drill; in April, “Network Aegis 2016” completed the fifth-generation upgrade; in June, “Network Defense” and “Network Capture” as the core re-installation of the annual joint exercise Debut.

  The essence of network security lies in the ability to attack and defend both ends. Currently, static, isolated, passive defenses such as firewalls, intrusion detection technologies, and anti-virus software are difficult to effectively deal with organized high-intensity network attacks. To build a cyberspace security defense line, we need to get rid of the idea of ​​falling behind and win the counterattack on the defensive concept.

New “Thirty-six” mobile target defense

Increase the difficulty of attack by building a dynamic network

  Network attacks require a certain amount of time to scan and research the target network, detect and utilize system “vulnerabilities” to achieve intrusion control purposes. In theory, the attacker has unlimited time to start the scanning and detecting work, and always find the weak point of defense, and finally achieve the purpose of the invasion. To this end, the network pioneer USA is committed to planning and deploying security defense transformation work, striving to break through the traditional defense concept and develop revolutionary technology that can “change the rules of the game”. Mobile target defense is one of them.

  Mobile target defense is called the new paradigm of cyberspace security defense. The technical strategy is to construct a dynamic network through the processing and control of the protection target itself, increasing randomness and reducing predictability to improve the difficulty of attack. If the static cyberspace is likened to a constant “city defense deployment”, it is difficult to stick to it; and the dynamic network configuration can be called the ever-changing “eight squad”, which is difficult to crack. At present, mobile target defense technology has priority in various US government and military research, covering dynamic platform technology, dynamic operating environment technology, dynamic software and data technology. In August 2012, the US Army awarded Raytheon’s “Deformation Network Facility” project to study the dynamic adjustment and configuration of networks, hosts and applications in case the enemy could not detect and predict, thus preventing, delaying or blocking the network. attack.

  As a new idea in the field of cyberspace security, mobile target defense reflects the technological development trend of future network defenses to turn “dead” networks into “live” networks.

The new “Thirty-six” honey cans deceive defense

Reduce cyberattack threats by consuming attacker resources

  Conventional network security protection is mainly to defend against cyber attacks from the front. Although the defensive measures have made great progress, they have not changed the basic situation of cyberspace “easy to attack and defend”. In recent years, the development of “Honeypot Deception Defense” has proposed a new concept of “bypass guidance”, which is to reduce the threat of cyber attacks to the real protection target by absorbing network intrusion and consuming the resources of attackers, thereby winning time. Strengthen protection measures to make up for the shortcomings of the traditional cyberspace defense system.

  Similar to the intentional setting of false positions on the battlefield, honeypot deception defense is to actively use the computer network with lower security defense level to lure all kinds of network attacks, monitor its attack means and attributes, and set corresponding defenses on the target system that needs to be protected. System to stop similar attacks. Honeypots can be divided into two types, product-type honeypots and research-type honeypots. The main purpose of the former is to “attract firepower” and reduce the pressure of defense. The latter is designed for research and acquisition of attack information. It is an intelligence gathering system that not only needs network attack resistance but also strives to monitor powerfully to capture the attack behavior data to the maximum extent.

  In addition to the establishment of a virtual network environment attack and defense laboratory consisting of four sub-networks of gray, yellow, black and green, the US military has also carefully deployed a honeypot decoy system on the Internet. What is certain is that the network defense idea based on deception will be further emphasized, and the technical means to achieve deception will be more and more.

New “Thirty-six Meters” linkage synergy defense

Integrate multiple defense technologies to “reject enemy from outside the country”

  At present, most of the security protection devices and defense technologies are “individually fighting”. The data between network protection nodes is difficult to share, and the protection technologies are not related. As a result, the current defense system is isolated and static, which cannot meet the increasingly complex network security situation. need. The original motivation of the US “Einstein Plan” was that all federal agencies had exclusive access to the Internet, making overall security difficult to guarantee. Through the collaborative linkage mechanism, the relatively independent security protection devices and technologies in the network are organically combined to complement each other and cooperate with each other to defend against various attacks. It has become an inevitable choice for the future development of cyberspace security defense.

  Collaborative collaborative defense refers to the use of existing security technologies, measures and equipment to organically organize multiple security systems that are separated in time, spatially distributed, and work and interdependent, so that the entire security system can maximize its effectiveness. Vertically, it is the coordinated defense of multiple security technologies, that is, one security technology directly includes or links to another security technology through some communication method. For example, the “deep defense” mechanism adopted by the US Navy network defense system targets the core deployment layer protection measures, including flag-based attack detection, WAN security audit, vulnerability alert, etc., and the attacker must break through multiple defense layers to enter the system. Thereby reducing its attack success rate. When a node in the system is threatened, it can forward the threat information to other nodes in time and take corresponding protective measures to adjust and deploy the protection strategy.

  In the past, individual combat operations have been unable to meet the needs of today’s network security defenses, and coordinated collaborative defense will leap into the mainstream of network security. Integrate a variety of defense technologies, establish an organized defense system, and “reject the enemy outside the country” to effectively prevent problems before they occur.

The optimal strategy defense of the new “Thirty-six”

Seeking a balance between cybersecurity risks and investments

  The attacks in cyberspace are more and more complicated. The ideal network security protection is to protect all the weak or attack behaviors. However, from the perspective of defense resources limitation, it is obviously unrealistic to pursue absolute security defense. Based on the concept of “moderate security”, the optimal strategy defense is on the horizon.

  Optimal policy defense can be understood as seeking a balance between cyber security risks and inputs, and using limited resources to make the most reasonable decision defense. As far as investment is concerned, even the strong United States is trying to build a collective defense system for cyberspace. The United States and Australia cyberspace defense alliance agreement, as well as the Japan-US network defense cooperation joint statement, its “share of results” behind the “cost sharing” shadow. From the perspective of risk, the pursuit of absolute security will adhere to the principle of safety supremacy. When formulating relevant strategic objectives and responding to threats, it is easy to ignore the limited and legitimacy of the resources and means available, and it is difficult to grasp the advance and retreat.

  The optimal strategy defense is mainly focused on the “optimal” strategy of game theory, focusing on the research direction of cyberspace security assessment, cost analysis, security defense model construction and evolution. Applying the idea of ​​game theory to cyber attacks and defenses provides a new way to solve the problem of optimal defense decision-making.

The new “Thirty-six” intrusion tolerance defense

Create a “last line of defense” for cyberspace security

  The threats to cyberspace are unpredictable, irresistible, and unpredictable. Protection can’t completely avoid system failure or even collapse. Traditional reliability theory and fault-tolerant computing technology are difficult to meet the actual needs, which has to consider more comprehensive and deeper problems than pure protection. In this context, a new generation of intrusion-tolerance defenses has received increasing attention.

  Intrusion tolerance is the third-generation network security technology, which belongs to the category of information survival technology and is called the “last line of defense” for cyberspace security defense. Unlike traditional cybersecurity defenses, intrusion-tolerant defenses recognize the existence of vulnerabilities and assume that some of them may be exploited by attackers to attack the system. When the target of protection is attacked or even some parts have been destroyed or manipulated, the target system can “kill the tail” like a gecko to complete the healing and regeneration of the target system.

  Intrusion-tolerance technology is no longer based on “defense”, but on how to reduce losses and recover as soon as the system has been damaged. However, intrusion tolerance is an emerging research field. Its cost, cost and benefit will be the next research direction.

Related Links–

Network attack and defense

“Shenzhen”: the pioneer of network physics warfare

点击进入下一页

  In August 2010, Iran built the Bushehr nuclear power plant with the help of Russia. However, the nuclear power plant, which was scheduled to be put into operation in October of that year, was postponed several times. A year later, according to media reports, it was caused by a computer network virus attack of unknown source. More than 30,000 computers were “in the middle”. Thousands of centrifuges in Natans were scrapped. The newly capped Bushehr nuclear power plant had to be taken out. Nuclear fuel was delayed and the Iranian nuclear development plan was forced to shelve. This virus, later named “Shenzhen”, pioneered the control and destruction of entities through the network.

“Flame”: the most powerful spy in history

点击进入下一页

  Network intelligence activities are the most active part of the cyberspace strategy game and security struggle. In 2012, a large amount of data from the Iranian oil sector was stolen and cleared, making it impossible for oil production and exports to function properly. In order to avoid continuing to create hazards, Iran was urgently disconnected from the network of the oil facilities on the Halk Island near the Gulf. After a large-scale investigation, a new virus emerged, which later appeared in the “flame” virus in Israel, Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries. The “Flame” virus combines the three characteristics of worms, backdoors and Trojans. It combines the interception of screen images, recording audio dialogues, intercepting keyboard input, and stealing Bluetooth devices. It has become a new type of electronic company that steals secret information from other countries. spy”.

“Shut”: System breaks

点击进入下一页

  In 2007, in order to kill the Syrian nuclear program in the bud, 18 F-16 fighters of the 69th Fighter Squadron of the Israeli Air Force quietly broke through the advanced Russian “Dor”-M1 air defense deployed by Syria on the Syrian-Israeli border. The system carried out precise bombing of a nuclear facility about 100 kilometers west of the Syrian-Israeli border and about 400 kilometers northeast of Damascus, and returned safely from the original road.

  According to the disclosure, the “Orchard Action” has made the US “Shuter” attack system shine. “Shut” invaded by remote radio, 瘫痪 radar, radio communication system, is the “behind the scenes” to make the Syrian air defense system in a state of failure. As a new type of network power attack system for networked weapon platforms and networked information systems, “Shut” represents the development trend of military technology and combat methods, and is bound to bring a new war landscape.

“Shadow Network”: Invisible Internet

点击进入下一页

  The complicated situation of ideological struggle caused by the Internet has created an alternative channel for information penetration and “colonization” of thought. In the “Jasmine Revolution” in North Africa and the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East, there are “shadow networks”.

  A ghost-like “shadow network” can bypass the traditionally regulated Internet, form an invisible and independent wireless local area network, realize mutual information communication, and access the Internet at any time as needed, and access the network resources “unrestricted”. The New York Times disclosed that the US State Department and the Pentagon have invested heavily in building an independent system in Afghanistan and using a launch tower located in the military camp to transmit signals to protect them from Taliban militants. Subsequently, an “invisible communication system” was established in Iran, Syria and Libya to help local anti-government organizations to communicate with each other or with the outside world.

“X Plan”: To control the network battlefield

点击进入下一页

  Foreign media revealed that the Pentagon is building a 22nd century war plan, the “X Plan.” The “X Plan” is dedicated to building an advanced global computer map. With this “network map” that can be continuously updated and updated, the US military can easily lock the target and make it embarrassing. “If this plan is completed, the US military will be able to control the network battlefield as it controls the traditional battlefield.”

  It is not difficult to foresee that after the deployment of the “X Plan”, it is definitely not just “get rid of the constraints of the keyboard”, but also enables situational awareness and cyber attacks on a global scale.

Original Mandarin Chinese

■網絡空間易攻難守,傳統的被動式防禦難以有效應對有組織的高強度攻擊

■提高網絡安全性,防禦一端不能只靠技術博弈,還需打贏理念上的反擊戰

網絡安全之新“三十六計”

■陳 森

點擊進入下一頁

費雪 繪

新聞緣由

信息時代,網絡安全對國家安全牽一發而動全身。 《國家信息化發展戰略綱要》強調,積極適應國家安全形勢新變化、信息技術發展新趨勢和強軍目標新要求,構建信息安全防禦體系,全面提高打贏信息化局部戰爭能力。網絡空間已經成為影響國家安全、社會穩定、經濟發展和文化傳播的全新領域,網絡空間安全隨之成為國際社會日益關注的重要議題。

美國明確宣稱網絡空間為新的作戰領域,大幅擴編網絡司令部和作戰部隊,持續聚力網絡空間武器研發。進入夏季以來,美軍網絡演習接二連三,隱形戰火硝煙瀰漫。 3月初,“網絡風暴5”率先拉開演練戰幕;4月,“網絡神盾2016”完成第五代升級;6月,“網絡防衛”“網絡奪旗”作為年度聯合演習的核心重裝登場。

網絡安全的本質在於攻防兩端能力較量,目前依賴防火牆、入侵檢測技術和反病毒軟件等靜態的、孤立的、被動式防禦難以有效應對有組織的高強度網絡攻擊。構築網絡空間安全防線,需要革除落伍思想,打贏防禦理念上的反擊戰。

新“三十六計”之移動目標防禦

通過構建動態網絡增加攻擊難度

網絡攻擊行動均需要一定的時間用於掃描和研究目標網絡,探測並利用系統“漏洞”,達到入侵控制目的。從理論上說,攻擊者有無限的時間展開掃描探測工作,總能找到防禦薄弱點,最終達成入侵目的。為此,網絡先行者美國致力於籌劃和部署安全防禦轉型工作,力求突破傳統防禦理念,發展能“改變遊戲規則”的革命性技術,移動目標防禦即是其中之一。

移動目標防禦被稱為網絡空間安全防禦新範式,技術策略上通過對防護目標本身的處理和控制,致力於構建一種動態的網絡,增加隨機性、減少可預見性,以提高攻擊難度。若將靜態的網絡空間比喻為一成不變的“城防部署”,勢難固守;而動態的網絡配置堪稱變幻無窮的“八卦陣”,難以破解。目前,移動目標防禦技術在美國政府和軍方各類研究中均享有優先權,涵蓋動態平台技術、動態運行環境技術、動態軟件和數據技術等方面。 2012年8月,美陸軍授予雷神公司“變形網絡設施”項目,主要研究在敵方無法探測和預知的情況下,對網絡、主機和應用程序進行動態調整和配置,從而預防、遲滯或阻止網絡攻擊。

作為網絡空間安全領域的新思路,移動目標防禦反映了未來網絡防禦將“死”網絡變成“活”網絡的技術發展趨勢。

新“三十六計”之蜜罐誘騙防禦

通過消耗攻擊者的資源減少網絡攻擊威脅

常規的網絡安全防護主要是從正面抵禦網絡攻擊,雖然防禦措施取得了長足進步,但仍未能改變網絡空間“易攻難守”的基本局面。近年來發展的“蜜罐誘騙防禦”則提出了一個“旁路引導”的新理念,即通過吸納網絡入侵和消耗攻擊者的資源來減少網絡攻擊對真正要防護目標的威脅,進而贏得時間以增強防護措施,彌補傳統網絡空間防禦體系的不足。

與戰場上有意設置假陣地相仿,蜜罐誘騙防禦是主動利用安全防禦層級較低的計算機網絡,引誘各類網絡攻擊,監測其攻擊手段和屬性,在真正需要做防護的目標系統上設置相應防禦體系,以阻止類似攻擊。蜜罐可分為兩種類型,即產品型蜜罐和研究型蜜罐。前者主要目的是“吸引火力”,減輕防禦壓力,後者則為研究和獲取攻擊信息而設計,堪稱情報蒐集系統,不僅需要網絡耐攻擊而且力求監視能力強大,以最大限度捕獲攻擊行為數據。

美軍除了建立由灰網、黃網、黑網、綠網4個子網絡組成的虛擬網絡環境攻防實驗室外,還在國際互聯網上精心部署有蜜罐誘騙系統。可以肯定的是,基於誘騙的網絡防禦思想將被進一步重視,實現誘騙的技術途徑也將會越來越多。

新“三十六計”之聯動協同防禦

整合多種防禦技術“拒敵於國門之外”

目前的安全防護設備和防禦技術大都是“各自為戰”,網絡防護節點間的數據難共享,防護技術不關聯,導致目前的防禦體係是孤立和靜態的,已不能滿足日趨複雜的網絡安全形勢需要。美國“愛因斯坦計劃”最初的動因就在於各聯邦機構獨享互聯網出口,使得整體安全性難以保障。通過協同聯動機制把網絡中相對獨立的安全防護設備和技術有機組合起來,取長補短,互相配合,共同抵禦各種攻擊,已成為未來網絡空間安全防禦發展的必然選擇。

聯動協同防禦是指利用現有安全技術、措施和設備,將時間上分離、空間上分佈而工作上又相互依賴的多個安全系統有機組織起來,從而使整個安全系統能夠最大程度地發揮效能。縱向上,是多個安全技術的聯動協同防禦,即一種安全技術直接包含或是通過某種通信方式鏈接另一種安全技術。如美國海軍網絡防禦體係採用的“縱深防禦”機制,針對核心部署層層防護措施,包括基於標誌的攻擊檢測、廣域網安全審計、脆弱性警報等,攻擊方須突破多個防禦層才能進入系統,從而降低其攻擊成功率。當系統中某節點受到威脅時,能夠及時將威脅信息轉發給其他節點並採取相應防護措施,進行一體化調整和部署防護策略。

昔日的單兵作戰已不能適應當今網絡安全防禦的需要,聯動協同防禦將躍升為網絡安全領域的主流。整合多種防禦技術,建立有組織性的防禦體系,“拒敵於國門之外”才能有效防患於未然。

新“三十六計”之最優策略防禦

在網絡安全風險和投入之間尋求一種均衡

網絡空間的攻擊越來越複雜,理想的網絡安全防護當然是對所有的弱項或攻擊行為都做出對應的防護,但是從防禦資源限制等情況考慮,追求絕對安全的防禦顯然是不現實的。基於“適度安全”的理念,最優策略防禦呼之欲出。

最優策略防禦可以理解為在網絡安全風險和投入之間尋求一種均衡,利用有限的資源做出最合理決策的防禦。就投入而言,即便是實力雄厚的美國,也是盡量打造網絡空間集體防禦體系。美國與澳大利亞網絡空間防禦同盟協定,以及日美網絡防禦合作聯合聲明,其“成果共享”背後亦有“成本分攤”的影子。從風險角度看,對絕對安全的追求將會秉持安全至上原則,在製定相關戰略目標和對威脅作出反應時,易忽視所擁有資源和手段的有限性、合法性,難以掌握進退。

最優策略防禦主要圍繞博弈論的策略“最優”而展開,集中在網絡空間安全測評、代價分析、安全防禦模型構建與演化等研究方向上。將博弈論的思想應用到網絡攻擊和防禦中,為解決最優防禦決策等難題研究提供了一種新思路。

新“三十六計”之入侵容忍防禦

打造網絡空間安全 “最後一道防線”

網絡空間面臨的威脅很多是不可預見、無法抗拒和防不勝防的,防護再好也不能完全避免系統失效甚至崩潰的發生。傳統的可靠性理論和容錯計算技術難以滿足實際需要,這就不得不思考比單純防護更全面、更深層次的問題。在此背景下,新一代入侵容忍防禦愈發受到重視。

入侵容忍是第三代網絡安全技術,隸屬於信息生存技術的範疇,被稱作是網絡空間安全防禦“最後一道防線”。與傳統網絡安全防禦思路不同,入侵容忍防禦承認脆弱點的存在,並假定其中某些脆弱點可能會被攻擊者利用而使系統遭到攻擊。防護目標在受到攻擊甚至某些部分已被破壞或被操控時,防護目標系統可以像壁虎一樣“斷尾求生”,完成目標系統的癒合和再生。

入侵容忍技術不再以“防”為主,而是重在系統已遭破壞的情況下如何減少損失,盡快恢復。但入侵容忍畢竟是一個新興研究領域,其成本、代價、效益等將是下一步的研究方向。

相關鏈接——

各顯其能的網絡攻防戰

“震網”:網絡物理戰先驅

點擊進入下一頁

2010年8月,伊朗在俄羅斯幫助下建成布什爾核電站,但這座計劃於當年10月正式發電運轉的核電站,卻多次推遲運行。一年後,據媒體揭秘,是因為遭到來源不明的計算機網絡病毒攻擊,超過3萬台電腦“中招”,位於納坦斯的千台離心機報廢,剛封頂的布什爾核電站不得不取出核燃料並延期啟動,伊朗核發展計劃則被迫擱置。這種後來被冠名為“震網”的病毒,開創了通過網絡控制並摧毀實體的先河。

“火焰”:史上最強大間諜

點擊進入下一頁

網絡情報活動,是網絡空間戰略博弈和安全斗爭最活躍的部分。 2012年,伊朗石油部門大量數據失竊並遭到清除,致使其無法正常進行石油生產和出口。為避免繼續製造危害,伊朗被迫切斷了海灣附近哈爾克島石油設施的網絡連接。大規模的調查後,一種新的病毒浮出水面,即後來又現身於以色列、巴勒斯坦等中東國家的“火焰”病毒。 “火焰”病毒兼具蠕蟲、後門和木馬三重特點,集截取屏幕畫面、記錄音頻對話、截獲鍵盤輸入、偷開藍牙設備等多種數據盜竊功能於一身,成為專門竊取他國機密情報的新型“電子間諜”。

“舒特”:體系破擊露鋒芒

點擊進入下一頁

2007年,為將敘利亞核計劃扼殺於萌芽之中,以色列空軍第69戰鬥機中隊的18架F-16戰機,悄無聲息地突破敘利亞在敘以邊境部署的先進俄製“道爾”-M1防空系統,對敘以邊境以西約100千米、大馬士革東北部約400千米的一處核設施實施精確轟炸,並從原路安全返回。

據披露,讓“果園行動”大放異彩的是美軍“舒特”攻擊系統。 “舒特”通過遠程無線電入侵,癱瘓雷達、無線電通信系統,是使敘防空系統處於失效狀態的“幕後真兇”。作為針對組網武器平台及網絡化信息系統的新型網電攻擊系統,“舒特”代表著軍事技術和作戰方式的發展趨勢,勢必將帶來全新戰爭景觀。

“影子網絡”:隱形國際互聯網

點擊進入下一頁

國際互聯網導致意識形態鬥爭的複雜局面,造成了信息滲透、思想“殖民”的另類通道。在北非“茉莉花革命”和中東“阿拉伯之春”中,均有“影子網絡”踪跡。

像幽靈一樣的“影子網絡”可繞過傳統監管的互聯網,形成隱形和獨立的無線局域網,實現相互間信息溝通,一旦需要又可隨時接入國際互聯網,“不受限制”地訪問網絡資源。 《紐約時報》披露稱,美國國務院和五角大樓斥巨資在阿富汗建造了獨立的系統,並利用設在軍營內的發射塔傳遞信號,以免遭塔利班武裝分子破壞。隨後在伊朗、敘利亞和利比亞設立“隱形通訊系統”,幫助當地反政府組織相互聯繫或與外界溝通。

“X計劃”:欲掌控網絡戰場

點擊進入下一頁

外媒披露,五角大樓正在打造一項22世紀的戰爭計劃,即“X計劃”。 “X計劃”致力於建立先進的全球計算機分佈圖,有了這張能夠不斷升級更新的“網絡地圖”,美軍就可以輕易鎖定目標令其癱瘓。 “如果完成了這個計劃,美軍將能夠像控制傳統戰場那樣控製網絡戰場。”

不難預見,“X計劃”部署後,絕對不只是“擺脫鍵盤的束縛”,更可以實現在全球範圍內進行態勢感知和網絡攻擊。

Original Referring URL: http://www.chinanews.com/mil/2016/08-11/

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber ​​Warfare // 美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber ​​Warfare //

美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

If a power-state wants to realize the dream of the empire, it was a world war 100 years ago, a nuclear war 50 years ago, and now it is a cyber war.

How does the United States face the cyber war era?

來源:中國國防報·軍事特刊作者:郝葉力責任編輯:黃楊海

Core tips

In recent years, the United States has taken a number of measures to accelerate the development of cyber warfare. After the Obama administration took office, it continued to play the “eight-one” “combination boxing” to improve its cyber warfare capabilities.

Because the United States adheres to the concept of absolute security in cyberspace, this will not only aggravate the insecurity of the United States, but will also induce instability in the objective, resulting in instability of the cyberspace situation.

Recently, foreign media reported the latest progress of the US military in cyber warfare: the US military has spent five years developing advanced cyber weapons and digital combat capabilities, and these weapons may soon be deployed more publicly and will be considered for the next few years. “Network militia.” The US’s measures to accelerate the development of cyber war deserve our high attention and in-depth study.

The era of cyber war has arrived

Today, one-third of the world’s population uses the Internet, and billions of people accept the services provided by the Internet. The arrival of cyber warfare is an inevitable historical necessity. The network revolution is also reshaping the new pattern of world political, economic, social and cultural development.

Cyber ​​warfare in many fields. Cyber ​​warfare has broken through the traditional warfare field, making war a veritable development in economic, political, and military fields. First, the cyber warfare in the economic field is aggressive. In particular, cyber warfare in the financial sector has been described as “a modern version of the bank.” Second, the cyber war in the political arena has intensified. Social networking as a tool for political change represents an amazing power. From the turmoil in West Asia and North Africa to the “Autumn Wall Street”, social networks are everywhere to participate and help. Under the conditions of informationization, the destructive power of network penetration even exceeds military intervention. The third is the initial test of the cyber warfare in the military field. The network has changed the traditional war mode, from the Gulf War embedded virus attack to the Russian-Georgian conflict to use the network “bee colony” attack, each war has a network war “shadow.”

Cyber ​​warfare has become the “atomic bomb” of the information age. The research of RAND Corporation puts forward: “The strategic war in the industrial era is nuclear war, and the strategic war in the information age is mainly cyber warfare.” Why can cyber warfare compare with nuclear war? Because the two have similarities in the “fission reaction” and the destruction effect. If the computer network is abstracted into the weaving of points and lines, the point is the computer and the router, the line is the network channel and the TCP/IP transmission protocol extending in all directions, and the network viruses such as Trojans and worms are the potential “uranium” in the network. Why do viruses in the network cause fission? There are two main reasons: First, the inherent defects of the computer architecture provide a “soil and hotbed” for the virus. The weapon of cyber warfare is a virus such as a Trojan, a worm (which is essentially a malicious code). The reason why malicious code can be raging is because there are exploitable vulnerabilities in the system, and the source of the vulnerability lies in the inherent shortcomings of the von Neumann architecture used by computers. The principle is to store data and programs in the read and write memory (RAM), the data can be read and written, and the program can be changed. In the cybersecurity incidents that occur in today’s world, more than 50% of the exploits that are exploited are mainly due to this mechanism. Second, the open shared Internet provides a path and bridge for the fission of the virus. “Network warfare: The next threat to national security and countermeasures” clearly states that there are five major flaws in the Internet: fragile domain name service systems, unverified routing protocols, malicious traffic without censorship, decentralized network structures, and Clear text transmission. Once these defects are exploited, they may form a flood of attacks on the network, which acts like a weapon of mass destruction, and is as powerful as the “atomic bomb” of the industrial age.

In the process of changing times and the evolution of war, who can take the lead in shifting the focus from the traditional field of human activities to new important areas, who can gain huge strategic benefits. It can be said that mastering the right to make nets in the 21st century is as decisive as mastering the sea power in the 19th century and mastering the air power in the 20th century.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

強權國家要想實現帝國夢想,100年前是發動世界大戰,50年前是籌劃核大戰,現在則是策動網絡戰

美國如何迎戰網絡戰時代

核心提示

近年來,美國採取多項舉措加快網絡戰的發展。奧巴馬政府上台以後,更是連續打出“八個一”的“組合拳”,提升網絡戰能力。

由於美國在網絡空間秉持絕對安全的理念,這不僅會加劇美國的不安全感,而且還會在客觀上誘發不安定因素,造成網絡空間態勢的不穩定。

近日,外媒報導美軍在網絡戰方面的最新進展:美軍已經花了5年時間開發先進的網絡武器和數字作戰能力,可能很快就會將這些武器進行更公開部署,並考慮未來數年建立“網絡民兵”。美國加快網絡戰發展的舉措值得我們高度重視和深入研究。

網絡戰時代已經到來

今天,全世界1/3人口使用國際互聯網,數十億人接受著網絡提供的各種服務。網絡戰的到來是不可阻擋的歷史必然,網絡革命也正在重塑世界政治、經濟、社會、文化發展的新格局。

多個領域迎來網絡戰。網絡戰已經突破傳統戰爭領域,使戰爭名副其實地在經濟、政治、軍事多個領域展開。一是經濟領域的網絡戰攻勢凌厲。特別是金融領域的網絡戰,被形容為“現代版的搶銀行”。二是政治領域的網絡戰愈演愈烈。社交網絡作為政治變革的工具體現了驚人的威力。從西亞北非動亂到“華爾街之秋”,處處都有社交網絡參與其中、推波助瀾。信息化條件下,網絡滲透的破壞力甚至超過軍事干預。三是軍事領域的網絡戰初試鋒芒。網絡改變了傳統戰爭模式,從海灣戰爭預埋病毒攻擊、到俄格衝突動用網絡“蜂群”攻擊,每一場戰爭都有網絡戰“影子”。

網絡戰成為信息時代的“原子彈”。蘭德公司研究提出:“工業時代的戰略戰是核戰爭,信息時代的戰略戰主要是網絡戰。”網絡戰為什麼能與核戰爭比肩?因為二者在“裂變反應”和破壞效果上極具相似之處。如果把計算機網絡抽象為點和線的編織,點就是計算機和路由器,線則是四通八達的網絡信道和TCP/IP傳輸協議,而木馬、蠕蟲等網絡病毒正是網絡中潛在的“鈾”。網絡中的病毒為什麼會產生裂變?主要有兩個原因:一是計算機體系結構的固有缺陷給病毒的產生提供了“土壤和溫床”。網絡戰的武器是木馬、蠕蟲(其實質是惡意代碼)等病毒。惡意代碼之所以能夠肆虐,是因為系統內存在可利用的漏洞,而漏洞的本源在於計算機採用的馮·諾依曼體系結構的先天不足。其原理是把數據和程序都統一存儲在讀寫存儲器(RAM)內,數據是可以讀寫的,程序也是可以改變的。當今世界發生的網絡安全事件,50%以上被利用的漏洞主要是源於這個機理。二是開放共享的互聯網為病毒的裂變提供了途徑和橋樑。 《網絡戰:國家安全的下一個威脅及對策》一書明確指出,互聯網存在五大缺陷:脆弱的域名服務系統、不經過驗證的路由協議、不進行審查的惡意流量、非集中式的網絡結構以及明文傳送。這些缺陷一旦被利用,就可能形成對網絡的攻擊洪流,其作用類似於大規模毀傷性武器,威力不亞於工業時代的“原子彈”。

在時代更迭、戰爭演變的進程中,誰能夠率先把關注點從人類活動的傳統領域轉入新的重要領域,誰就能獲得巨大戰略利益。可以說,21世紀掌握製網權與19世紀掌握制海權、20世紀掌握制空權一樣具有決定意義。

The main measures for the United States to accelerate the development of cyber war

Obama, who relies on the success of the network operator, attaches great importance to the construction of cyberspace. He delivered a “5·29” speech when he came to power, and believed that protecting the network infrastructure would be the top priority for maintaining US national security. During his tenure, Obama successively launched the “eight-one” “combination boxing”, which made the US cyber war into a period of rapid development.

The first is to launch a report. In the “Network Space Security Policy Assessment Report”, it emphasizes that cyber war is related to national security, affects social stability, is related to economic development, and determines the outcome of war.

The second is to strengthen a strategy. It has established a “three-in-one” national security strategy supported by the deterrent strategy of nuclear weapons, the preemptive strategy of space, and the network’s control strategy.

The third is to form a headquarters. In 2009, the US military established the Cyberspace Command, which is the main function of commanding cyber warfare. In May 2013, the US military set up a “joint network center” at each theater headquarters, and its cyber warfare command system was gradually improved. At the same time, the US military also plans to upgrade the Cyberspace Command to a formal combatant command, making it a level of organization with other theater headquarters. This will directly shorten the chain of command of the US cyber warfare forces and the military.

The fourth is to develop a road map. In 2010, the US Army officially issued the “Network Space Combat Capability Conception”, which is considered to be the first roadmap for the development of cyber warfare capabilities developed by the US military.

The fifth is to start a shooting range. In 2009, the US Department of Defense launched the “National Network Shooting Range” project, which was officially delivered in 2012. The US cyber warfare training and weapon evaluation have a realistic environment.

The sixth is to develop a series of weapons. The US military has developed and stocked more than 2,000 virus weapons, and these weapons are gradually moving toward a systemic direction. There are mainly anti-smuggling weapons represented by “seismic net” virus and “digital cannon”, intelligence warfare weapons represented by “flame” and “Gauss” virus, and psychology represented by “shadow network” and “digital water army”. War weapons.

The seventh is to plan a series of exercises. From 2006 to the present, the United States has organized several cross-border cross-border “network storm” exercises. Every time, the Internet is listed as an offensive and defensive target, targeting key infrastructure such as finance, transportation, electricity, energy, and communications. This reveals the main battlefield of cyberspace, which is an open Internet rather than a closed tactical network.

Eight is to support a number of social networking sites. A number of social networking sites such as “Twitter” and “Facebook” have become strategic tools to interfere in his internal affairs. This is a punch in the combination punch. In February 2013, after the overthrow of the opposition government in Tunisia and Egypt, Obama fully affirmed the important role played by Internet companies such as “Twitter” and “Facebook”. According to statistics, only “Facebook” social networking sites have more than 1.3 billion users worldwide.

Published the “Network War Declaration.” Obama’s move after the ruling shows that the United States has officially incorporated cyber warfare into the category of war and classified cyberspace as a new operational domain, reflecting the US’s advanced forecast and preemptive design for future wars. There are two main reasons for its deep motivation: First, to ensure its own network security – reflecting the United States’ concerns about its information security. The second is to ensure global cyber hegemony – reflecting the new concept of the American war.

In 2014, the US military actually promoted the “Network Space Warfare Rules” and “Network Space Warfare Joint Order”, which led to the international strategic competition to focus on the new global public domain of the Internet. The actions of the United States from the domestic to the international, the slave network to the use of force, from the declaration to the action, from the colonial land to the colonial thinking reflect the United States attempting to format the whole world with American values ​​through the Internet. As one reporter said: “Modern American colonization is thought, not land.”

In April 2015, the United States released a new version of the Network Strategy Report, which comprehensively revised the 2011 Cyberspace Action Strategy Report issued by the US Department of Defense. It has the following new changes:

First, it provides a new basis for enhancing the important position of network power construction. The report further raises the threat of US cyberspace to a “first-tier” threat. At the same time, the report also regards China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as potential “network opponents” in the United States. This is the latest and most serious judgment on the cyber threat situation.

The second is to provide new guidance for speeding up the construction of cyber warfare forces. The report focused on the three major tasks and five major goals of the Ministry of Defense in cyberspace, and further refined the construction goals of 133 cyber warfare detachments.

The third is to create a new pillar for maintaining a comprehensive military advantage. The report clearly stated that when the United States faces an attack against the interests of the United States or the United States in cyberspace, the US military can conduct cyber operations and implement cyber attacks. This is the most important adjustment to this cyberspace strategy. In the future, the US military will use cyber attacks as an important means of warfare. This is the main manifestation of the United States’ concept of “moving the Internet with the use of force” in cyberspace.

The fourth is to create new conditions for reshaping the international network system. The report emphasizes the emphasis on strengthening the coordination between the military and the civilians; the key external development and cooperation with allies. The main goal of the cooperation is to share the costs and risks, promote the international code of conduct that is beneficial to the United States, and seize the right to speak and lead in the formulation of cyberspace rules.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國加快網絡戰發展的主要舉措

依靠網絡運營商競選成功的奧巴馬,對網絡空間的建設非常重視,一上台就發表了“5·29”講話,認為保護網絡基礎設施將是維護美國國家安全的第一要務。在任期間,奧巴馬連續打出了“八個一”的“組合拳”,使美國網絡戰進入快速發展時期。

一是推出一個報告。其在《網絡空間安全政策評估報告》中強調:網絡戰事關國家安全、影響社會穩定、關乎經濟發展、決定戰爭勝負。

二是強化一個戰略。其確立了以核武器的威懾戰略、太空的搶先戰略、網絡的控制戰略為支撐的“三位一體”國家安全戰略。

三是組建一個司令部。 2009年,美軍成立了以指揮網絡戰為主要職能的網絡空間司令部。 2013年5月,美軍在各戰區總部組建“聯合網絡中心”,其網絡戰指揮體係日漸完善。同時,美軍還計劃將網絡空間司令部升格為正式的作戰司令部,使其成為與其他戰區司令部平級的機構。此舉將直接縮短美國網絡戰部隊與軍方最高層的指揮鏈。

四是製定一個路線圖。 2010年,美陸軍正式出台《網絡空間作戰能力構想》,這被認為是美軍制定的首份網絡作戰能力發展路線圖。

五是啟動一個靶場。 2009年,美國防部啟動了“國家網絡靶場”項目,2012年正式交付使用,美國網絡戰演習訓練、武器測評擁有了逼真環境。

六是研發一系列武器。美軍已研發儲備了2000多種病毒武器,這些武器逐漸向體系化方向發展。主要有以“震網”病毒、“數字大砲”為代表的阻癱戰武器,以“火焰”“高斯”病毒為代表的情報戰武器和以“影子網絡”“數字水軍”為代表的心理戰武器。

七是策劃系列演習。從2006年到現在,美國已經組織了多次跨界跨國跨域“網絡風暴”演習。每一次都把互聯網列為攻防目標,瞄準的都是金融、交通、電力、能源、通信等關鍵基礎設施。這揭示了網絡空間的主戰場,是開放的國際互聯網而不是封閉的戰術網。

八是扶持一批社交網站。把“推特”“臉書”等一批社交網站變為乾涉他國內政的戰略利器。這是組合拳中的一記重拳。 2013年2月,在突尼斯、埃及政府被反對派推翻後,奧巴馬充分肯定了“推特”“臉譜”等網絡公司在其中發揮的重要作用。據統計,僅“臉譜”社交網站的全球用戶已超過13億。

發表“網絡戰宣言”。奧巴馬執政後的舉措,表明美國已經正式將網絡戰納入戰爭範疇,把網絡空間列為新的作戰域,這反映出美國對未來戰爭的超前預測和搶先設計。其深層動因主要有兩點:一是確保自身網絡安全———反映了美國對其信息安全的擔憂。二是確保全球網絡霸權———反映了美國戰爭的新理念。

2014年,美軍實案化推進《網絡空間作戰規則》和《網絡空間作戰聯合條令》,牽動國際戰略競爭向互聯網這一新全球公域聚焦。美國這些從國內到國際、從動網到動武、從宣言到行動、從殖民土地到殖民思想的行動舉措,反映出美國企圖通過互聯網,用美式價值觀格式化整個世界。正如一位記者所說:“現代美國殖民的是思想,而不是土地”。

2015年4月,美國又發布了新版網絡戰略報告,對2011年美國國防部出台的《網絡空間行動戰略報告》進行了全面修訂。其主要有以下幾個新變化:

一是為提升網絡力量建設重要地位提供新的依據。該報告進一步把美國在網絡空間的威脅上升為“第一層級”的威脅。同時,該報告還將中國、俄羅斯、伊朗、朝鮮視為美國潛在的“網絡對手”,這是其對網絡威脅形勢做出的最新、最嚴峻的判斷。

二是為加快網絡戰力量建設提供新的指導。報告重點明確了國防部在網絡空間的三大任務和五大目標,並進一步細化133支網絡戰分隊的建設目標。

三是為維持全面的軍事優勢打造新的支柱。報告明確提出,當美國面臨針對美國本土或美國在網絡空間利益的攻擊時,美軍可以進行網絡作戰,實施網絡攻擊。這是此次網絡空間戰略最重要的調整。未來,美軍將把網絡攻擊作為重要的作戰手段使用。這是美國在網絡空間“動網就動武”理念的主要體現。

四是為重塑國際網絡體系創造新條件。報告強調,對內重點加強軍民協同;對外重點發展與盟友合作。合作的主要目標是分擔成本和風險,推行對美有利的國際行為準則,搶奪網絡空間規則制定的話語權和主導權。

The three key pillars of the United States to accelerate the development of cyber war

There are three key pillars for the United States to accelerate the development of cyber warfare:

Technical pillar. The “Prism Gate Incident” further confirms that the United States has been monitoring the global network to the point of pervasiveness. The United States occupies the upstream of the industrial chain. From basic chips to hardware applications, from operating systems to commercial software, Midea has an absolute technological advantage, forming a complete set of industrial chains, supply chains and information chains. The overwhelming advantages of technology and the monopoly in many core markets are key to the acceleration of cyber warfare in the United States.

Discourse pillar. The powerful ability of the United States to act in cyberspace determines its strong voice in online diplomacy. No matter what double standards it exhibits in cyberspace, it can influence the global public opinion space under the support of powerful discourse. Without the emergence of the “Prism Gate Incident,” the United States has created two “lie” that have become truths around the world: first, the West is a victim of cyberattacks; and second, China is a source of cyberattacks. This has greatly damaged China’s national image, reputation and international status in the international community, seriously affecting China’s high-tech exports, and achieving the “four-two-pound” effect that is difficult to achieve using trade protection and WTO rules. Even if the “Prism Gate Incident” tears open the “fair of justice” of the United States, it still shows superior combat capability, claiming to be monitored by itself, and placing national security on the basis of personal privacy in the name of counter-terrorism. Firmly control the right to speak in cyberspace.

Strategic pillar. A higher level than the technical pillar and discourse pillar is the strategic pillar. The core of the US strategic pillar is reflected in the pre-emptive global strategy and the overall layout of the game power. First, the advantages of multiple forces complement each other. At present, the United States is actively cultivating cyber security companies such as “Fire Eyes”, using their technological advantages and unofficial background to globally control, long-term tracking, collecting evidence, and acting as a pioneer, while the government and the military are hiding behind the scenes. This has earned the US diplomacy a flexible space for attack and retreat. Second, the network attack and defense and theft of intelligence are clear. The clear strategic division of labor has brought the benefit to the United States. Even if the “Prime Gate Incident” broke the news, the National Security Agency was “spoken” by the world, but there was no such thing as its cyberspace command. Instead, the cyberspace command made the cyberspace command The maintenance of national security is an excuse to accelerate the expansion of the army and develop at a high level. The United States has two clear main lines in cyberspace, namely: the National Security Agency is in charge of the network, and the Cyberspace Command is in charge of the network. This clear strategic thinking has provided strong support for the United States to accelerate the development of cyber warfare.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國加快網絡戰發展的三個關鍵支柱

美國加快網絡戰發展有三個關鍵性支柱:

技術支柱。 “棱鏡門事件”進一步證實美國對全球網絡的監控達到了無孔不入的程度。美國占據了產業鏈上游,從基礎芯片到硬件應用,從操作系統到商用軟件,美都具有絕對的技術優勢,形成了一整套完整的產業鏈、供應鍊和信息鏈。技術領域的壓倒性優勢和在眾多核心市場的壟斷地位是美國能加快網絡戰發展的關鍵。

話語支柱。美國在網絡空間強大的行動能力決定了其在網絡外交上強大的話語權。無論它在網絡空間展現怎樣的雙重標準,都能在強大的話語支撐下影響全球輿論空間。要是沒有“棱鏡門事件”的出現,美國已在全球製造出兩個已經成為真理的“謊言”:第一,西方是網絡攻擊受害者;第二,中國是網絡攻擊源。這在國際社會極大地損害了中國的國家形象、信譽和國際地位,嚴重影響了中國的高科技出口,達到了利用貿易保護和WTO規則博弈難以實現的“四兩撥千斤”效果。即便是“棱鏡門事件”撕開了美國的“正義面紗”,它仍然表現出超強的戰鬥能力,對外聲稱自己被監控;對內以反恐為名,將國家安全置於個人隱私之上,牢牢掌握著網絡空間的話語權。

戰略支柱。比技術支柱和話語支柱更高一層的是戰略支柱。美方的戰略支柱核心體現在先發製人的全球戰略和博弈力量的整體佈局。一是多元力量的優勢互補。目前,美國積極培植“火眼”這樣的網絡安全企業,利用他們的技術優勢和非官方背景在全球布控、長期跟踪、蒐集證據、充當先鋒,而政府和軍隊則躲在背後,水到渠成時再投入博弈,這為美國的外交贏得了進可攻、退可守的彈性空間。二是網絡攻防和竊取情報涇渭分明。清晰的戰略分工對美國帶來的好處是,即使“棱鏡門事件”的爆料讓美國國家安全局被世界“吐槽”,但是卻絲毫沒有殃及其網絡空間司令部,反而使網絡空間司令部以維護國家安全為藉口,理直氣壯加速擴軍,高調發展。美國在網絡空間有兩條清晰的主線,即:國家安全局主管網絡獲情,網絡空間司令部主管網絡攻防。這種清晰的戰略思路為美國加快網絡戰發展提供了強有力的支撐。

Absolute Security: Double Standards and Realistic Paradox of American Cybersecurity Concept

It can be seen that on the issue of network security, the United States pursues the concept of absolute security and attempts to use force to move the military to achieve absolute control over cyberspace. It can be seen from Snowden’s breaking news that the US network monitoring of the international community is systematic, large-scale, and uninterrupted, but it requires other countries to strictly control itself, and it cannot be half-step. This is an asymmetrical mindset and a double standard.

Is it feasible? The problem of cyberspace is very complicated, and the processing methods cannot be too simple. To deal with these problems, new rules, new methods, and new thinking are needed. First, there are many kinds of cyberspace actors, and they are mixed. Second, the attack path and source can be virtual forged, and the source of evidence must rely on multiple parties. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of virtual space, many rules of armed conflict law for physical space are difficult to use in cyberspace. For example: How to define war and peace in cyberspace? How to distinguish between military targets and civilian targets? How does the neutral concept apply? In a country that declares neutrality, it is difficult to control the computer malicious code of others without flowing through the network equipment in its own territory, and it is difficult to avoid the control and utilization of the network facilities of the belligerents. For example, in the case of cyber attacks in foreign countries, network equipment in China has also been used by hackers as “broilers” and “springboards”. China is an innocent victim. If “the state responsibility of cyberattacks launched through the country is not properly prevented by “neutral state standards” and “the destruction of cyberattacks by force”, China may suffer innocent blame. And the United States has such a strong technology that it is difficult to completely prevent being exploited, attacked, and controlled. Cyberspace cannot easily be judged or written. Management methods and patterns suitable for physical space may not be suitable for virtual space. Feel free to reduce the trajectory of cyberspace, and at the same time push up the risk of conflict escalation. Therefore, any dispute arising out of cyberspace should be resolved in a peaceful manner and should not be threatened by force or by force.

Is the effect controllable? There are two situations in which a consequence assessment is required. First, what should I do if I misjudge? Simplifying the threshold of attack can make a neutral country or an innocent suffer a disaster. Second, can you solve the problem? In 2014, local conflicts such as the Ukrainian crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict led to cyber conflicts, and large-scale cyber attacks continued to take place. Western countries headed by the United States have imposed sanctions on Russian banks and enterprises, resulting in a clear upward trend in cyberattacks against the US financial industry. It can be seen from the effect evaluation that it cannot be said that deterrence and force have no effect on the solution of the problem, but it is not a panacea. If a big country like the United States and Russia uses force in cyberspace, what kind of negative effects and consequences will this bring to world peace?

Is it desirable to think? Although the United States has the most powerful army and the most advanced technology in the world, it is still constantly looking for opponents, rendering crises and exaggerating threats. This makes the whole world lack of security, objectively induces unstable factors, and stimulates negative energy and potential threats. It is precisely because the United States pays too much attention to its own national interests and is unwilling to adjust its strategic demands for the sound development of the international system. This has led the United States to continually fall into the “security dilemma” and “more anti-terrorism” circles since the “9.11” incident. This phenomenon deserves the United States to ponder.

(The author is the vice president of the National Innovation and Development Strategy Research Association)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

絕對安全:美國網絡安全觀的雙重標準及現實悖論

可以看出,在網絡安全問題上,美國奉行絕對安全的理念,企圖通過動網就動武,實現對網絡空間的絕對控制。通過斯諾登的爆料可以看出,美國對國際社會的網絡監控是系統的、大規模的、不間斷的,但是其要求其他國家嚴格自我管控,不能越雷池半步。這是一種不對稱的思維,也是一種雙重標準。

方法上是否可行?網絡空間的問題非常複雜,處理方法不能過於簡單,處理這些問題需要有新規則、新方法、新思維。一是網絡空間行為體多種多樣,“魚龍混雜”。二是攻擊路徑、源頭可以虛擬偽造,溯源取證要靠多方配合。由於虛擬空間的複雜性、不確定性,用於實體空間的武裝衝突法的很多規則很難在網絡空間使用。例如:在網絡空間戰爭與和平如何界定?軍用目標和民用目標如何區分?中立概念如何適用?一個宣布中立的國家,很難控制他人的計算機惡意代碼不流經自己領土內的網絡設備,也很難躲避交戰方對其網絡設施的控制和利用。例如在外國發生的網絡攻擊事件中,中國境內的網絡設備也被黑客用作“肉雞”和“跳板”,中國是無辜的受害方。如果以“中立國標準追究沒有適時阻止經由本國發動的網絡攻擊的國家責任”,“以武力毀傷摧毀網絡攻擊來源”,中國可能會遭受無辜的非難。而美國有那麼強的技術也難以完全阻止被利用、被攻擊、被控制。網絡空間不能輕易下判書、下戰書。適合實體空間的管理方法和模式未必適合虛擬空間。隨意降低網絡空間動武門檻,同時會推高衝突升級的風險。因此,網絡空間發生的任何爭端應以和平方式解決,不應使用武力或以武力相威脅。

效果上是否可控?有兩種情況需要作後果評估。第一,誤判了怎麼辦?簡單化地降低打擊門檻可能會讓中立國或無辜者蒙受災難。第二,能否解決問題? 2014年,烏克蘭危機、巴以沖突等局部地區對抗導致網絡衝突不斷,大規模網絡攻擊事件持續上演。以美國為首的西方國家對俄銀行、企業進行製裁,導致對美金融行業的網絡攻擊呈明顯上升趨勢。由此可見,從效果評估看,不能說威懾和武力對問題的解決沒有效果,但它不是萬能的。如果美俄這樣的大國在網絡空間動武,這會給世界和平帶來什麼樣的負面效應和惡果?

思維上是否可取?儘管美國擁有世界上最強大的軍隊、最先進的科技,但仍然在不斷尋找對手、渲染危機、誇大威脅。這讓整個世界缺少安全感,客觀上誘發不安定因素,激發負能量和潛在威脅。正是因為美國過度關注自身的國家利益,不願意為了國際體系良性發展,調整戰略訴求,才導緻美國從“9·11”事件以來,不斷陷入“安全困境”和“越反越恐”的怪圈,這種現象值得美國深思。

(作者係國家創新與發展戰略研究會副會長)。

Original Referring URL:  http://www.81.cn/wjsm/2016-02/17/