Category Archives: Chinese Military Views – 中國軍事觀

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/

 

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security // 中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security //

中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

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.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

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。

Original Referring URL:  http://www.81.cn/jskj/2016-08/11/

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? // 美军网络战主要干什么?

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? //

美军网络战主要干什么?

Source: PLA Daily Author: Chen Hanghui Editor: Yao Yuan

Recently, the US military has been “big move” in the field of cyber warfare. On October 24th, the US Department of Defense announced in a high-profile manner that the network task force directly under the US Cyber ​​Command has the initial operational capability to perform basic cyber warfare tasks. From wielding the “cyber weapon stick” to the announcement of major progress in the construction of network forces, the United States intends to send a message to the outside world – the US military has basically built a network warfare power system and strives for the hegemonic position of the “fifth space.”

Strategic guidance –

Create a network action force system

As the creator of the Internet, the US military was the first to plan the formation of a cyber warfare army. As early as 1995, the US National Defense University trained 16 network warriors who relied on computers for information confrontation. From the development history of the past 20 years, strengthening strategic guidance and doing a good overall planning is a basic experience for the rapid development of the US military’s cyber warfare forces.

In 2002, the then President Bush signed the “National Security Order No. 16” and asked the Ministry of Defense to take the lead in formulating a cyberspace action strategy. In December of the same year, the US Navy took the lead in setting up the Cyber ​​Command, and the Air Force and the Army also quickly followed up to form a service network force. In March 2005, the US Department of Defense issued the “Defense Strategy Report,” which defined the strategic position of cyberspace and characterized it as the fifth-dimensional space that is as important as land, sea, air, and sky. The development of US cyber warfare forces is ushered in. The first wave of climax. In general, in the early stage of development, although the development speed of the US military’s cyber warfare forces was fast, it lacked overall planning, and the various military cyber warfare units were stacked in flames and failed to form a joint force.

After President Obama, who relied on the Internet to win the general election, took the stage, he focused on strengthening the strategic guidance for cyber warfare capacity building from two aspects. On the one hand, in May 2010, the network headquarters of the entire army was established to coordinate the cyber warfare forces of various services and strengthen the command and control of cyberspace operations. On the other hand, in 2011 and 2015, two strategic reports, the Cyberspace Action Strategy and the DoD Network Strategy, were launched. The former explained the five pillars of the US military’s cyberspace operations, and the latter clarified the mission of cyber warfare forces. Mission and construction goals.

At present, the US military cyber warfare power system has basically taken shape. At the heart of the system is a network mission force directly under the US Cyber ​​Command, which plays a key role in the US cyber warfare operations. As of the end of October 2016, the number of US military network task forces has reached 5,000, and all of the 133 network task forces compiled have initial operational capabilities, of which nearly half have full operational capabilities. According to the US Department of Defense program, by September 30, 2018, the number of network missions will increase to 6,187, with full operational capability.

Practical traction –

Conduct cyberspace attack and defense drills

In recent years, as cyber warfare has moved from behind the scenes to the front of the stage as an independent warfare style, the US military’s cyberspace action strategy has shifted from “precaution-based” to “attack and defense”, and improving the cyberspace combat capability has become the focus of the US military. At present, the US military mainly promotes network training under actual combat conditions from four aspects.

Open online courses according to actual needs and lay a solid foundation for cyber warfare skills. In response to the new situation in the field of cyberspace, the US military major military academies have added online courses. In 2012, the US Air Force Ordnance Academy launched its first offensive cyber action course, focusing on how to combine network capabilities with traditional combat methods. In 2014, West Point Military Academy established the Army Cyber ​​Warfare Academy to train network elites. In the past few years, military colleges such as the West Point Military Academy and the Naval Academy have conducted network offensive and defensive drills with the “Red Cell” team composed of experts from the US National Security Agency to cultivate the backbone of future cyber warfare.

Develop a general-purpose network warfare training platform to improve the comprehensive benefits of training. At the Department of Defense, led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the “National Network Shooting Range” was developed to simulate the cyberspace attack and defense operational environment, test network weaponry, and test new operational concepts. At the military level, a virtual environment was developed that could serve as a network range or test platform for testing, planning, and evaluating cyberspace operations. For example, the network virtual city built by the US Air Force can be used to conduct network attack and defense tactics; the naval development of the “tactical network shooting range” can extend network training to the radio frequency physical environment, achieving efficient integration of joint firepower and information advantages.

Conduct integrated network warfare exercises to improve the actual combat capability of network forces. In early 2016, the US Department of Defense’s Office of Combat Test and Evaluation recommended in a report to Congress that, in view of the fact that the US military will perform its tasks under the violent confrontation of cyberspace, it should regularly organize network offensive and defensive units and combat units to jointly conduct operations. drill. Since the beginning of this year, the US Army has conducted a number of exercises using network squadrons such as “Network Exploration” and “Network Flash Battle”, focusing on the actions of network detachments to support combat troops under field conditions. In April of this year, the US Army’s 25th Infantry Division and the 7th Communications Command Network Protection Brigade jointly held a “Network Flash Battle” exercise to test the feasibility of multi-sectoral interdisciplinary collaboration such as communication, network, and firepower.

Organize comprehensive cyber war exercises to strengthen military and network joint network operations capabilities. The US military believes that “the strategic war in the industrial era is a nuclear war, and the strategic war in the information age is mainly a cyber war.” Only by implementing the overall network war of the military and the land can we win the future cyber war. Since 2012, the US Army Network Command has jointly led the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to jointly organize a “Network Guardian” military joint exercise to strengthen information sharing between the US Department of Defense and other federal government agencies and private companies. In the “Network Guardian-2016” exercise held in June this year, more than 100 organizations and more than 800 organizations from government, academia, industry and allies participated in the exercise, focusing on the response to large-scale blackouts, oil refinery oil spills, and ports. Close other network attack scenarios.

Built with one –

Exploring the use of network forces

The United States was the first country to propose the concept of cyber warfare and the first country to use cyber forces for actual combat. As early as 2007, the National Security Agency used computer viruses to infect militants’ mobile phones and laptops, deceiving the enemy by sending false information, and even introducing the enemy into the US ambush to assist the US military in its operations.

After the establishment of the network mission force in 2012, in order to maintain the first-mover advantage in the field of cyberspace, the US military has followed the principle of “building and using, building and integrating” and actively explored and promoted the operational use of network forces. At the end of 2012, the US Army Network Command took the lead in deploying a network mission detachment with full operational capabilities at the Central Command to support US military operations in Syria and Iraq. In October 2015, US Naval Network Task Force Commander Paul Nakaso revealed at the seminar of the Center for Strategic and International Studies that although it had not yet been formed, the network task force had begun to participate in actual military operations. According to reports, from January to October 2015, the US military network task force participated in seven major military operations.

In April this year, under the direction of Defense Minister Carter, the US Cyber ​​Command publicly announced a cyberattack against the “Islamic State” terrorist organization and became the “first show” of the US military network forces. In the course of the operation, the US military network forces focused on the communication network, publicity websites, and social networking websites of the “Islamic State”, and downgraded the information, issued instructions, recruited new people, and paid electronic payments through network downgrades and false orders. ability.

With the increasingly prominent role of cyberspace operations in US military joint operations, the US military has focused on the construction of the network force command and control architecture. After the completion of the US Cyber ​​Command in 2010, the US Army, Sea, and Air Forces established the Service Network Command. In May 2012, the US military formed a “Joint Network Center” at each theater headquarters to serve as a link between the theater command and the US Cyber ​​Command to better use the network mission force to support theater operations. At present, the US military executives are actively promoting the upgrading of the Cyber ​​Command to an independent combatant command. Once this vision becomes a reality, the command relationship of the US military network forces will be clearer and the chain of command will be more efficient.

(Author: Nanjing Army Command Academy) 

Picture: Yang Lei

Original Mandarin Chinese:

近段時間,美軍在網絡戰領域“大招”頻出。 10月24日,美國國防部高調宣布,直屬於美國網絡司令部的網絡任務部隊已具備初始作戰能力,能夠執行基本的網絡戰任務。從揮舞“網絡武器大棒”到公佈網絡部隊建設重大進展,美國意在向外界傳遞一個訊息——美軍已基本建成網絡戰力量體系,全力謀求“第五空間”的霸權地位。

戰略引導——

打造網絡行動力量體系

作為互聯網的締造者,美軍是最早籌劃組建網絡戰部隊的軍隊。早在1995年,美國國防大學就培養了16名依托計算機從事信息對抗的網絡戰士。從過去20年的發展歷程看,強化戰略指導、搞好統籌規劃是美軍網絡戰力量快速發展的一條基本經驗。

2002年,時任總統布什簽署“國家安全第16號總統令”,要求國防部牽頭制定網絡空間行動戰略。同年12月,美國海軍率先成立網絡司令部,空軍和陸軍也迅速跟進,組建軍種網絡部隊。 2005年3月,美國國防部出台《國防戰略報告》,明確了網絡空間的戰略地位,將其定性為與陸、海、空、天同等重要的第五維空間,美軍網絡戰力量發展迎來第一波高潮。總體而言,在發展初期,美軍網絡戰力量發展速度雖快,但缺乏統籌規劃,各軍種網絡戰部隊煙囪林立,未能形成合力。

依靠互聯網贏得大選的奧巴馬總統上台後,重點從兩方面強化對網絡戰能力建設的戰略引導。一方面,於2010年5月建成統管全軍的網絡司令部,統籌各軍種網絡戰力量,強化網絡空間行動指揮控制。另一方面,分別於2011年和2015年推出《網絡空間行動戰略》和《國防部網絡戰略》兩份戰略報告,前者闡述了美軍網絡空間行動的五大支柱,後者明確了網絡戰力量的使命任務和建設目標。

目前,美軍網絡戰力量體系已基本成型。位於該體系中心的是直屬於美國網絡司令部的網絡任務部隊,其在美軍網絡戰行動中扮演關鍵角色。截至2016年10月底,美軍網絡任務部隊人數已達5000人,編制的133個網絡任務組全部具備初始作戰能力,其中近一半具備了完全作戰能力。根據美國國防部計劃,到2018年9月30日,網絡任務部隊規模將增至6187人,具備完全作戰能力。

實戰牽引——

開展網絡空間攻防演練

近年來,隨著網絡戰作為獨立作戰樣式從幕後走向台前,美軍網絡空間行動策略由“以防為主”向“攻防兼備”轉變,提升網絡空間實戰能力成為美軍的練兵重點。當前,美軍主要從4方面推進實戰條件下的網絡訓練。

根據實戰需求開設網絡課程,打牢網絡戰技能基礎。為應對網絡空間領域新情況,美軍各大軍事院校紛紛增設網絡課程。 2012年,美國空軍軍械學院首次開設進攻性網絡行動課程,重點講授如何將網絡能力與傳統戰斗方式有機結合;2014年,西點軍校成立了陸軍網絡戰研究院,負責培養網絡精英。過去幾年,西點軍校、海軍軍官學院等軍事院校每年都會與由美國國家安全局專家組成的“紅細胞”隊進行網絡攻防演練,培養未來的網絡戰骨幹力量。

開發通用型網絡戰訓練平台,提高訓練綜合效益。在國防部層面,由國防高級研究項目局牽頭,開發了“國家網絡靶場”,用於模擬網絡空間攻防作戰環境,測試網絡武器裝備,檢驗新型作戰概念。在軍種層面,研發了可作為網絡靶場或測試平台的虛擬環境,用於測試、規劃和評估網絡空間行動。例如,美國空軍打造的網絡虛擬城市,可用於演練網絡攻防戰術;海軍開發的“戰術網絡靶場”可以將網絡訓練拓展到射頻物理環境,實現聯合火力與信息優勢的高效集成。

開展集成性網絡戰演練,提升網絡部隊實戰能力。 2016年初,美國國防部作戰測試與評估辦公室在向國會提交的一份報告中建議,考慮到美軍將在網絡空間領域激烈對抗的條件下執行任務,應定期組織網絡攻防部隊和作戰部隊聯合開展作戰演練。今年以來,美國陸軍已開展“網絡探索”“網絡閃擊戰”等多場運用網絡分隊的演習,重點演練網絡分隊在野戰條件下支援作戰部隊的行動。今年4月,美國陸軍第25步兵師和第7通信司令部網絡防護旅聯合舉行了“網絡閃擊戰”演習,檢驗了通信、網絡、火力等多部門跨專業協同的可行性。

組織綜合性網絡戰演習,強化軍地聯合網絡行動能力。美軍認為,“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”,只有實施軍地聯合的網絡總體戰,才能打贏未來網絡戰爭。 2012年以來,美軍網絡司令部每年都與國土安全部和聯邦調查局聯合牽頭組織“網絡衛士”軍地聯合演習,以便加強美國國防部與其他聯邦政府機構和私營企業之間的信息共享。在今年6月舉行的“網絡衛士-2016”演習中,來自政府、學界、業界和盟國的100多個組織、800多人參加了演習,重點演練了應對大面積停電、煉油廠漏油、港口關閉等網絡襲擊場景。

建用一體——

探索網絡部隊作戰運用

美國是第一個提出網絡戰概念的國家,也是第一個將網絡部隊用於實戰的國家。早在2007年,美國國家安全局就曾使用電腦病毒感染武裝分子的手機和筆記本電腦,通過發送虛假信息欺騙敵方,甚至將敵引入美軍埋伏圈,協助美軍開展行動。

2012年開始組建網絡任務部隊後,為保持在網絡空間領域的先發優勢,美軍遵循“邊建邊用、建用一體”的原則,積極探索和推進網絡部隊的作戰運用。 2012年底,美軍網絡司令部率先在中央司令部部署擁有完全作戰能力的網絡任務分隊,支持美軍在敘利亞和伊拉克的軍事行動。 2015年10月,美軍網絡任務部隊指揮官保羅·納卡索在參加戰略與國際研究中心研討會時透露,雖然尚未組建完畢,但網絡任務部隊已經開始參與實際軍事行動。據報導,僅2015年1月至10月,美軍網絡任務部隊就參與了7次重大軍事行動。

今年4月,在國防部長卡特的授意下,美國網絡司令部公開宣布對“伊斯蘭國”恐怖組織發動網絡攻擊,成為美軍網絡部隊的“首秀”。行動中,美軍網絡部隊以“伊斯蘭國”組織的通信網絡、宣傳網站、社交網站賬號為主要目標,通過網絡降級、發布虛假指令等方式,削弱其傳遞信息、下達指示、招募新人和電子支付等能力。

隨著網絡空間作戰在美軍聯合作戰中的作用日益突出,美軍重點推進了網絡部隊指揮控制架構建設。 2010年建成美國網絡司令部後,美國陸、海、空三大軍種相繼成立了軍種網絡司令部。 2012年5月,美軍在各戰區總部組建“聯合網絡中心”,作為連接戰區司令部與美國網絡司令部的紐帶,以便更好地使用網絡任務部隊支援戰區作戰。當前,美軍高層正積極推動將網絡司令部升格為獨立的作戰司令部,一旦該設想成為現實,美軍網絡部隊的指揮關係將更加清晰,指揮鏈運轉將更加高效。

(作者單位:南京陸軍指揮學院)

圖片資料:楊 磊

Referring URL:  http://www.81.cn/jskj/2017-03/

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield // 中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield //

中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

2017年04月17日 15:xx:xx

If the First World War was a chemist’s war and the Second World War was a physicist’s war, then the 21st century war would undoubtedly become a game between informatics. The cyberspace war has moved from the background to the front. From the supporting role to the protagonist, become a new battlefield and combat platform. With the gradual emergence of the cyber warfare deterrent effect, countries have introduced network strategies and formed “cyber warfare forces”. The global network arms race has shown its tempo. At present, more than 20 countries have established “cyber warfare forces”. Committed to the application of network technology to war, the “seismic network” incident and the “hacker door” incident fully proved the remarkable power of cyber warfare in the new generation of war mode.

    We must profoundly understand the new forms of war reflected by these events and actively respond to the threats and challenges brought by cyber sovereignty, network defense, network frontiers, and cyber warfare, because whoever masters the new war winning mechanism will be able to Win the initiative in the round of war.

Network Sovereignty: A New Dimension

  

  The world today is moving rapidly toward informationization, and cyberspace has become the “fifth largest territory” beyond land, sea, air and sky. The original sovereignty is the sovereignty of physical space, while the network sovereignty is the sovereign space of network electromagnetic space; national sovereignty is a concept that expands with the expansion of human activity space. Network sovereignty is a new content and an important part of national sovereignty.

    (1) Cyber ​​sovereignty has become the “commanding height” of national sovereignty. The network carries a large amount of content such as politics, economy, military, culture, transportation and social, and becomes the basic platform for the efficient operation and accelerated progress of the entire society. Once the cyber sovereignty is lost, the network public opinion orientation will be out of control. The national industrial, transportation, energy and other national economic lifeline industry control systems and military information networks will be out of control, just as sea power challenges land rights and air rights challenges sea power and land rights. The latecomers of cyber sovereignty have become the “commanding heights” of national sovereignty, directly affecting the security and stability of all areas of the country.

    (2) The violation of cyber sovereignty will directly affect the “heart” of the country. Compared with traditional physical space, the existence and defense of cyberspace sovereignty is not only easily overlooked, but also vulnerable to violations. The network hinges the information nodes on the earth that are thousands of miles apart. Through it, it can be easily and easily moved from one country to the heart of another country to the heart. A keystroke can surround the Earth for two weeks in a period of 0.3 seconds, and the attack is difficult to locate.

    (3) The use of “combination boxing” is required to defend the cyberspace sovereignty. In the Google turmoil in 2010, the Chinese government categorically rejected Google’s request for “freedom” beyond Chinese legal management, which is a firm defense of cyber sovereignty. For any violation of the cyber sovereignty of our network, we must not only resist and counterattack in the cyberspace, but also play a “combination boxing” of politics, economy, and diplomacy to counterattack if necessary.

Network Frontiers – A New Border of National Security

    China’s Internet users have reached 731 million. In this context, the network frontier far surpasses the status of the Great Wall in history and has become an important “warning line” for national security in the information age.

    (1) Fully recognize the “new situation” of the network frontier. The first is the lack of network protection awareness among the people. Many systems have the same firewall, the network security problem is serious, and the cyber crime is increasing. Secondly, the network security products and security equipment in key areas rely on imports. The mainstream firewall technology and anti-virus technology are mostly from abroad, and they can control themselves independently. The lack of high-tech network security products; the third is that as China is increasingly connected to the world, the introduction of technology and equipment network remote services increases, the foreign party can monitor the operation and production of the equipment in real time, making me “portal opening”; finally In actual network operations, Western network powers monopolize a large number of network resources. For example, most of the world’s online information comes from or passes through the United States.

    (2) Accurately define the “new boundary” of cyberspace. On the one hand, we must correctly understand the essential meaning of the network frontier. A country’s network infrastructure, state-specific Internet domain names and their domains, as well as financial, telecommunications, transportation, energy and other national core network systems in the national economy and the people’s livelihood should be regarded as an important part of the national network frontier, and no vandalism is allowed. On the one hand, we must correctly understand the importance of guarding the network frontier. Watching the network frontier is actually an authorization relationship, that is, it must meet the requirements and be allowed to enter. Otherwise, it cannot enter. For example, national financial, power, transportation and other systems of protection measures, firewalls and bank card cryptosystems are the “watchers” of the network frontier.

    (3) Focus on creating a “new sword” that guards the frontiers of the network. The frontiers of guarding the network must be supported by powerful technical means. Various firewalls, cryptosystems, etc. are equivalent to building thick lines on the frontiers of the network, but this is not enough to resist external “invasion”, but also requires “patrol sentinels” and “frontier forces” to detect “intrusion” in a timely manner. In 2003, the US Einstein Plan for monitoring abnormal traffic at government agencies and institutional networks was the world’s first intrusion detection system. By the end of 2008, the Einstein system had been deployed in 600 government agency website systems, forming an intrusion detection system that supports dynamic protection.

Network Defense – The New Great Wall of National Defense

    Sovereignty without armed protection is a fragile sovereignty, and frontiers without defense and defense are endangered frontiers. Therefore, people have a strong sense of border defense, coastal defense, and air defense.

    (1) Firmly establishing a network defense concept is a “premise.” The countries of the world, especially the western developed countries, have not only woke up early, got up early, but also ran fast in the construction of network defense. Among them, the United States is both the creator of the Internet and the country that first paid attention to the construction of network security protection. The United States not only took the lead in formulating a series of policy documents such as the National Strategy for Ensuring Cyberspace Security, but also established a strong “net army” and a strong network defense.

    (2) Vigorously building the network’s national defense force is a “trend.” The United States, Britain, Japan, Russia and other countries, as well as Taiwan, have formed cyber warfare units and command agencies. Strengthening the construction of cyber security forces and improving the national cyber defense capabilities are both the general trend and the successful practices of all countries in the world. They are also an urgent task for safeguarding China’s national security.

    (III) Overall planning of network defense construction is “key”. The overall strategic concept should be proposed for the current cyberspace struggle, and the “three hands” should be highlighted in the top-level design: that is, to compete as a “flag-bearer” in public opinion, to select “hands-on” in the construction focus, and to stay on the struggle strategy. There is a “backhand”.

Cyber ​​Warfare: A New Battlefield for the Game of Great Powers

    In today’s world, the globalization of network battlefields, the normalization of network attack and defense, and the white-hotness of network attacks have made it possible to scientifically and effectively control cyberspace and occupy cyberspace, and become a new battlefield for strategic games of big countries.

    The first is to regard the cyberspace situational awareness as the core of the power system. The four capabilities of “network security, situational awareness, network defense, and network deterrence” are the core capabilities for comprehensively promoting the construction of the cyberspace capability system. The war first requires the commander to grasp and understand the enemy’s and his own situation, make correct decisions based on the real-time situation, and the ever-changing characteristics of the network situation determine the success or failure of the network operation. Therefore, network situational awareness has become the primary capability of the cyberspace combat confrontation system.

    The second is to use offensive operations as the main way to seize the initiative of cyberspace. The US military has strategically considered the cyberspace attacks as aggression in real space and has been attacked by the military. At present, the US military has built 100 teams to operate in cyberspace. In cyberspace operations, the offensive and defensive subjects have a certain degree of separation, and the offensive and defensive effects have asymmetry. The key to seizing the initiative in cyberspace operations is to use the offensive action to contain enemy attacks and ensure my stability.

    The third is to establish a cyberspace defense force system with national co-ordination and military-civilian integration. To attack and defend, not to ignore the defense. Therefore, in accordance with the idea of ​​“optimizing the overall existing strength, developing the gap to fill the gap, and building a new mechanism to protect the forces”, the company will build a professional, support and reserve based on the requirements of “moderate scale, structural optimization, integration of technology and warfare, and complementary functions”. The new cyberspace security defense force system composed of other forces will enhance the national network counterattack capability and form a network deterrent. (Li Yiyang: School of Secondary School Affiliated to Renmin University of China; Li Minghai: Deputy Director, Network Space Research Center, National Defense University) 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

如果說第一次世界大戰是化學家的戰爭,第二次世界大戰是物理學家的戰爭,那麼,21世紀的戰爭無疑將成為信息學家之間的博弈,網絡空間戰已從後台走向前台,從配角轉向主角,成為新的戰場和作戰平台隨著網絡戰威懾效果的逐步顯現,各國紛紛出台網絡戰略,組建“網絡戰部隊”,全球網絡軍備競賽呈燎原之勢 – 目前已有20多個國家組建了“網絡戰部隊”,各國都致力於將網絡技術運用於戰爭“震網”事件,“黑客門”事件充分證明了網絡戰在新一代戰爭模式中的顯著威力。

我們必須深刻認識這些事件所折射出來的新的戰爭形態,積極應對網絡主權,網絡國防,網絡邊疆,網絡戰爭帶來的威脅和挑戰,因為,誰掌握新的戰爭制勝機理,誰就能在下一輪戰爭中贏得主動。

網絡主權 – 國家主權的新維度

當今世界正在向著信息化快速邁進,網絡空間成為繼陸,海,空,天之外的“第五大疆域”原有的主權均為物理空間的主權,而網絡主權是網絡電磁空間主權。國家主權是一個隨著人類活動空間的拓展而不斷拓展的概念,網絡主權是國家主權的全新內容和重要組成部分。

(一)網絡主權已成為國家主權的“制高點”。網絡承載了政治,經濟,軍事,文化,交通和社交等大量內容,成為整個社會高效運轉和加速進步的基本平台。一旦喪失網絡主權,網絡輿情導向將會失控,國家工業,交通,能源等國民經濟命脈行業控制系統和軍事信息網絡都將會失控,如同海權挑戰陸權,空權挑戰海權與陸權一樣,網絡主權後來者居上,成為國家主權的“制高點”,直接影響國家各領域的安全穩定。

(二)網絡主權的侵犯將直逼國家的“心臟”。與傳統實體空間相比,網絡空間主權的存在與捍衛不僅易被忽視,而且易遭侵犯。網絡把地球上相距萬里的信息節點鉸鏈為一體,通過它可以悄無聲息,輕而易舉地從一國進入另一國腹地直至心臟部位。一次擊鍵0.3秒時間內即可環繞地球兩週,而且,攻擊很難被定位。

(三)捍衛網絡空間主權需用“組合拳”。2010年谷歌風波中,中國政府斷然拒絕谷歌要求超越中國法律管理的“自由”,就是對網絡主權的堅決捍衛。對於任何侵犯我網絡主權的行為,不僅要在網絡空間予以抵制和反擊,必要時還可打出政治,經濟,外交等“組合拳”給予還擊。

網絡邊疆 – 國家安全的新邊界

中國網民已達7.31億,在這個背景下,網絡邊疆遠超歷史上萬里長城的地位,成為信息時代國家安全的重要“警戒線”。

(一)充分認清網絡邊疆的“新形勢”首先是民眾缺乏網絡防護意識,很多系統的防火牆形同虛設,網絡安全問題嚴重,網絡犯罪日益增加;其次是網絡安全產品和關鍵領域安全設備依賴進口,主流防火牆技術和殺毒技術大都來自國外,自主可控,高技術含量的網絡安全產品匱乏;第三是隨著我國日益與世界接軌,引進技術設備的網絡遠程服務增加,外方能實時監控設備運轉和生產情況,令我自身“門戶洞開”;最後是在實際網絡運營上,西方網絡大國壟斷著大量網絡資源,比如,全球大多數網上信息發自或經過美國。

(二)準確界定網絡空間的“新邊界”。一方面,要正確理解網絡邊疆的本質內涵。一個國家的網絡基礎設施,國家專屬的互聯網域名及其域內以及金融,電信,交通,能源等關係國計民生領域的國家核心網絡系統都應視為國家網絡邊疆的重要組成部分,不允許肆意破壞;另一方面,要正確認識值守網絡邊疆的重要性值守網絡邊疆,其實是一種授權關係,即必須符合要求,得到允許才能進入,否則,不能進入。比如,國家金融,電力,交通等系統的防護措施,防火牆以及銀行卡密碼系統等都是網絡邊疆的“值守者”。

(三)著力打造守護網絡邊疆的“新利劍”。守護網絡邊疆必須以強大的技術手段為支撐。各種防火牆,密碼系統等相當於在網絡邊疆上建起了粗線條的籬笆,但這不足以抵禦外來“入侵”,還需要“巡邏哨兵”和“邊防部隊”及時檢測“入侵”行為。2003年,美國用於監測政府部門和機構網絡關口非正常流量的“愛因斯坦計劃”,就是世界上第一個入侵檢測系統。到2008年年底,愛因斯坦系統已部署在600個政府機構網站系統中,形成了一個支撐動態保護的入侵檢測系統。

網絡國防 – 國家防禦的新長城

沒有武裝保護的主權是脆弱的主權,沒有國防捍衛的邊疆是瀕危的邊疆。因此,人們才產生了強烈的邊防,海防,空防意識。

(一)牢固樹立網絡國防理念是“前提”。世界各國,尤其是西方發達國家在網絡國防建設上,不僅醒得早,起得早,而且跑得快。其中,美國既是互聯網的締造者,也是最早關注網絡安全防護建設的國家。美國不僅率先制定了“確保網絡空間安全的國家戰略”等一系列政策文件,而且建立了強大的“網軍”和強大的網絡國防。

(二)大力建設網絡國防力量是“勢趨”。美國,英國,日本,俄羅斯等國以及中國台灣地區,紛紛組建了網絡戰部隊和指揮機構。加強網絡安全力量建設,提高國家網絡防衛能力,這既是大勢所趨,也是世界各國的成功做法,更是維護我國國家安全的一項緊迫任務。

(三)整體統籌網絡國防建設是“關鍵”應針對當前網絡空間鬥爭實際提出總體戰略構想,並在頂層設計上突出“三手”:即在輿論造勢上爭當“旗手”,在建設重點上選好“抓手”,在鬥爭策略上留有“後手”。

網絡戰爭 – 大國博弈的新戰場

當今世界,網絡戰場的全球化,網絡攻防的常態化,網絡攻心的白熱化等突出特點,使得科學高效地管控網絡空間,佔領網絡空間,成為大國戰略博弈的新戰場。

一是把網絡空間態勢感知能力作為力量體系建設核心。“網絡安全保障,態勢感知,網絡防禦,網絡威懾”四大能力,是全面推進網絡空間能力體系建設的核心能力。戰爭首先需要指揮員能夠掌握和理解敵方,己方態勢,根據實時態勢作出正確決策,網絡態勢瞬息萬變的特點決定了網絡作戰的成敗。因此,網絡態勢感知能力就成為網絡空間作戰對抗體系的首要能力。

二是將攻勢作戰作為奪取網絡空間主動權的主要方式。美軍在戰略上已將網絡空間的攻擊行為視為現實空間的侵略行為,並予以軍事打擊。目前美軍已建成100個小組在網絡空間活動。網絡空間作戰,攻防主體具有一定的分離性,攻防效果具有不對稱性。奪取網絡空間作戰的主動權,關鍵在於以攻勢行動遏制敵攻擊,保證我穩定。

三是建立國家統籌,軍民融合的網絡空間防禦力量體系。以攻助防,不是忽視防禦。因此,需要按照“優化整體現有力量,發展填補空白力量,組建新機理防護力量”的思路,依據“規模適度,結構優化,技戰一體,功能互補”的要求,構建由專業,支援和預備役等力量構成的新型網絡空間安全防禦力量體系,提升國家網絡反擊能力,形成網絡威懾力(李昊洋:中國人民大學附屬中學分校;李明海:國防大學網絡空間研究中心副主任)

Original Referring URL:  http://www.cac.gov.cn/2017-04/

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace // 中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace //

中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

2017/05/20

Cyberspace has become a new territory alongside land, sea, air and space, and it is also the most extensive territory. Since the birth of the computer, computer and network-based information systems have gradually developed, and the software and resources on it have been continuously enriched, eventually forming a network space.

With the continuous development of the US military’s weapons and equipment and combat theory, the “cyberspace warfare” began to move from reality to reality. Compared with the traditional “platform center warfare”, the role of the command and control system “combat multiplier” in “cyberspace warfare” will be more prominent, and the impact on combat will be even greater. In the future modern war, in cyberspace Command and control should have its own characteristics and concerns.

In theory, cyberspace is synonymous with the digital society of all available electronic information and networks. The United States “National Security Presidential Decree No. 45 and General Homeland Security Order No. 23” defines cyberspace as: information technology infrastructure and interdependent networks, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and processors in key industries. And the controller, usually also includes the information virtual environment and the interaction between people.

Cyberspace has four elements: communication devices and lines; computers; software; data communication and resource sharing. Communication equipment and lines: It is one of the infrastructures of network space, including routing/switching equipment, wired/wireless communication equipment, cables, and so on. Computer: One of the infrastructures of cyberspace with computing, storage, and data processing capabilities. Software: It is the core supporting part of cyberspace, and software systems running various functions in communication devices and computers. Data communication and resource sharing: It is the basic capability of cyberspace, providing the required information for users at all levels.

Commanding operations in the vast new territory of cyberspace will inevitably require the linkage of multiple arms and services. First, it should have security protection capabilities, provide multiple levels of security, and secondly must master the battlefield situation. In addition, it must have resource scheduling capabilities, etc. Provide support for integrated joint operations.

Security protection refers to the protection of data in the hardware, software and systems of network systems by using various technologies and management measures so that they are not damaged, falsified or leaked due to accidental or malicious reasons, so that the system can continue Reliable and normal operation, network services are not interrupted.

In the cyberspace command operation, the whole process of generating, storing, transmitting and using all kinds of allegations is faced with one or the other security threats. The traditional form of conflict has been extended to cyberspace.

Security protection technology and attack technology have been developing together. The contest between “spear” and “shield” has existed since ancient times. Although the US military has consistently expressed its position through various channels, it claims that the “core of the US military’s cyberspace operations is to defend against cyberattacks, and defensive capabilities are the basis of all other combat capabilities.” However, a little analysis shows that the US military must achieve this in cyberspace. The goal is to combine attack and defense, build a network deterrent system, and consolidate its own “networking rights” in the military. US Deputy Defense Secretary Lynn has made it clear that the US will retain the right to respond to serious cyber attacks and will make a commensurate and legitimate military response at the time and place we choose. Former Defense Secretary Panetta has pointed out: “Now we live in a completely different world and face the cyberspace attack that can be compared with Pearl Harbor.” “We must be prepared to deal with it. In cyberspace, we have to Have a good network attack and network defense capabilities.” These speeches fully demonstrate that the US military pays attention to the deterrent effect of cyberspace, emphasizes the combination of attack and defense in cyberspace, and takes the initiative to launch cyberattacks when necessary. Its military goal is not only to ensure its own network security, but to discourage by improving its cyber attack capabilities. And deterrence all cyberattacks that are not conducive to oneself, to achieve its absolute freedom, absolute superiority and absolute security in cyberspace.

In the cyberspace, the offensive and defensive drills between the state and the country have never stopped. In July 2008, Russia used a covert injection of attack software to launch a comprehensive cyberattack against Georgia, causing the network to collapse. In December 2011, Iran declared that its “electronic warfare force” used a “hacker hijacking” method to cause an American RQ-170 stealth drone to leave the route and land in Iran. The “super flame” virus discovered in May 2012 spread widely in the Middle East, hiding in the computer and stealing data. In March 2014, the official website of the Russian president suffered a cyber attack. From the previous cyberattacks, the cyber attack is as good as the fire of conventional weapons. The security of cyberspace is the security of the country, and cyberspace has become a space in the field of national sovereignty.

Security protection in cyberspace should employ multiple levels of security mechanisms. At the national strategic level, it is a national-level network security protection; in key areas, there are network security protections in the military, government, and economic fields; in large enterprises, there are network security protections of state-owned and private enterprises and institutions; There are network security protections for individuals and families. Among them, the national level of security protection mainly includes border network security and backbone network security; enterprise-level (and military) security protection mainly includes border network security and intranet security; personal computer security protection mainly includes computer terminal security, terminal software security and terminal Data Security. At different levels of security, the content of protected information varies from national strategic planning to development routes to personal privacy and bank passwords. The leakage of information will undoubtedly have a blow and negative impact on the survival and development of the country, enterprises and individuals, and even undermine the security and stability of the country.

Situational awareness is the perception, understanding and prediction of environmental factors under certain time and space conditions. In 1988, Endsley divided situational awareness into three levels of information processing: perception, understanding, and prediction. In 1999, TimBass first proposed the concept of network situational awareness, and pointed out that “convergence-based network situational awareness” will become the development direction of network management.

“Know yourself and know each other, there is no war.” In the new battle space of cyberspace, how can we be confidant and know each other? It is necessary to grasp the situation of the battlefield and have the ability to sense the situation, that is, to acquire, understand and present the key factors that can cause changes in the state of the enemy and the enemy, and to predict the future development trend.

The battlefield situation in cyberspace has the characteristics of wide coverage, huge amount of information, and extremely complicated conditions. For all levels of commanders, they hope to clearly understand and master the current cyberspace operations from the situation map, so that they can make decisions quickly and issue correct command orders.

To gain insight into the state and situation of cyberspace battlefield development, it must have the ability to collect, transmit, store, monitor, analyze, and present state data. In the key position of the network space, the detection points are laid, the network running status is detected, and the state data is collected. Based on various state data, network posture, security situation, spectrum situation, etc. are formed. Then, it is transmitted to the node with data analysis and processing capability through various communication means to analyze the situation data, including situational integration, situation assessment and situation prediction. The results of the analysis and processing are transmitted to the command posts at all levels, and the battlefield situation is presented to the commanders at all levels in a layered, multi-dimensional, on-demand manner. The basic process of situational awareness is consistent with the traditional approach, but each process is different.

The battlefield situation of cyberspace should be layered, global, and partial, which puts higher demands on the situation. With the continuous development of rendering technology, simple planar situational maps can no longer meet the operational needs, especially in the cyberspace combat environment, the demand for stereoscopic and multidimensional situations is prominent. Even if you are in the command post, the commander should be able to understand the battlefield situation and face the real opponent through the situation map. In the American war movie, you can often see the stereoscopic, touchable electronic sandbox, and the multi-dimensional display of the real-time battlefield situation enables the commanding function to make quick and accurate decisions and improve command and control capabilities. The battlefield environment of cyberspace is extremely complex, network environment, equipment operation, software operation… Many places need to have clear and intuitive display. In order to improve the user experience and shorten the decision time, the cyberspace situation should have multi-dimensional dynamic characteristics, and can support multi-screen display, multi-screen linkage and so on. From the top-level situation map, you can understand the whole picture of the war. From the local situation map, you can understand the status of the combat units at all levels. The commanders at different levels can view different situation maps as needed based on their own authority.

As a new type of combat space, cyberspace has objective differences with traditional physical space, and there are special requirements for command and control of cyberspace. However, cyberspace command and control still faces many other problems, such as how to integrate cyberspace command and control with traditional physical space command and control systems, and how to conduct cyberspace command and control effectiveness evaluation.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

網絡空間已成為與陸地、海洋、空中、太空並列的一片新疆域,也是覆蓋面最廣的疆域。從計算機誕生之日起,以計算機和網絡為基礎的信息系統就逐漸發展起來,其上的軟件和資源也不斷豐富,最終形成了網絡空間。

隨著美軍武器裝備和作戰理論的不斷發展,“網絡空間戰”從設想開始走向現實。與傳統的“平台中心戰”相比,在“網絡空間戰”中指揮控制系統“戰鬥力倍增器”的作用將更加突出,對作戰的影響也更加巨大’在未來的現代化戰爭中,網絡空間中的指揮控制應有它自身的特點和關注點。

從理論上講,網絡空間是所有可利用的電子信息、網絡構成的數字社會的代名詞。美國《第45號國家安全總統令暨第23號國土安全總令》中將網絡空間定義為:信息技術基礎設施和相互依存的網絡,包括互聯網、電信網、電腦系統以及重要產業中的處理器和控制器,通常還包括信息虛擬環境以及人與人之間的互動。

網絡空間具有四個要素:通信設備和線路;計算機;軟件;數據通信與資源共享。通信設備和線路:是網絡空間的基礎設施之一,具體包括路由/交換設備、有線/無線通信設備、線纜等。計算機:是網絡空間的基礎設施之一,具有計算、存儲和數據處理等能力。軟件:是網絡空間的核心支撐部分,通信設備和計算機中均運行著各種功能的軟件系統。數據通信與資源共享:是網絡空間具備的基本能力,為各類各級用戶提供所需的信息。

在網絡空間這一遼闊的新疆域中指揮作戰,必然需要多個軍兵種聯動,首先應當具備安全防護能力,提供多級安全保障,其次必須掌握戰場態勢,另外還必須具有資源調度能力等,能夠為一體化聯合作戰提供支撐。

安全防護是指通過釆用各種技術和管理措施,保護網絡系統的硬件、軟件及系統中的數據,使其不因偶然的或者惡意的原因而遭受到破壞、篡改、洩露,使得系統能夠連續可靠正常地運行,網絡服務不中斷。

網絡空間指揮作戰中,各類指控信息的產生、存儲、傳輸和使用的全過程,均面臨著這樣或那樣的安全威脅,傳統的衝突形式已擴展到網絡空間。

安全防護技術和攻擊技術一直在共同發展著,“矛”與“盾”的較量自古就有。雖然美軍不斷通過各種渠道表態,宣稱美軍網絡空間行動的“核心是防禦網絡攻擊行為,防禦能力是其他一切作戰能力的基礎”,但稍加分析即可看出,美軍在網絡空間要達成的目標是:攻防結合,構建網絡威懾體系,在軍事上鞏固自己的“製網權”。美國國防部副部長林恩曾明確表示,美方將保留回應嚴重網絡攻擊的權利,會在“我們選擇的時間和地點做出相稱且正當的軍事回應”。前任國防部長帕內塔曾指出:“現在我們生活在一個完全不同的世界裡,要面對可與珍珠港比擬的網絡空間攻擊”,“我們必須做好應對準備,在網絡空間,我們要同時擁有良好的網絡進攻與網絡防禦能力”。這些講話充分顯示了美軍注重網絡空間威懾效應、在網絡空間強調攻防結合、必要時不惜主動發動網絡攻擊的心態,其軍事目標絕不僅僅是保證自身網絡安全,而是要通過提升網絡攻擊能力勸阻和威懾所有不利於己的網絡攻擊行為,實現其在網絡空間的絕對自由、絕對優勢和絕對安全。

在網絡空間中,國家與國家之間的攻防演練也從來沒有停止過。 2008年7月,俄羅斯利用攻擊軟件的隱蔽注入,對格魯吉亞實施了全面的網絡攻擊,導致網絡癱瘓。 2011年12月,伊朗宣稱其“電子戰部隊”用“黑客劫持”的方法使得美國的一架RQ-170隱形無人機脫離航線,降落在伊朗境內。 2012年5月被發現的“超級火焰”病毒在中東大範圍傳播,在計算機內隱蔽駐留、竊取數據。 2014年3月,俄羅斯總統官網遭遇網絡攻擊。從歷次的網絡攻擊事件來看,網絡攻擊效果不亞於常規武器的火力打擊。網絡空間的安全,就是國家的安全,網絡空間已成為國家主權領域空間。

網絡空間中的安全防護應採用多級安全保障機制。在國家戰略層面,是國家級網絡安全防護;在關鍵部位,有軍隊、政府、經濟等領域的網絡安全防護;在大型企業中,有國有、私有等企事業單位的網絡安全防護;在局部,有個人、家庭等範圍的網絡安全防護。其中,國家層面的安全防護主要包括邊界網絡安全和骨幹網絡安全;企業級(及軍隊)安全防護主要包括邊界網絡安全和內網安全;個人計算機安全防護主要包括計算機終端安全、終端軟件安全及終端數據安全。在不同的安全級別上,保護的信息內容各不相同,大到國家戰略規劃、發展路線,小到個人隱私、銀行密碼等。信息的洩漏,無疑會對國家、企業、個人的生存和發展帶來打擊和負面影響,甚至會破壞國家的安全和穩定。

態勢感知是在一定的時間和空間條件下,對環境因素的感知、理解以及對其發展趨勢的預測。 1988年,Endsley把態勢感知分為感知、理解和預測三個層次的信息處理。 1999年,TimBass首次提出了網絡態勢感知的概念,並且指出,“基於融合的網絡態勢感知”必將成為網絡管理的發展方向。

“知己知彼,百戰不殆。”在網絡空間這一新型作戰空間中,如何才能做到知己和知彼?必須掌握戰場態勢,具有態勢感知能力,即對能夠引起敵我狀態發生變化的關鍵因素進行獲取、理解和呈現,並能夠預測未來的發展趨勢。

網絡空間中的戰場態勢具有覆蓋面廣、信息量巨大、情況異常複雜等特點。對於各級指揮員來說,都希望能夠從態勢圖上清晰地了解和掌握當前網絡空間作戰狀況,以便能夠快速地進行決策,下達正確的指揮作戰命令。

要洞察網絡空間戰場發展的狀態和形勢,必須具備狀態數據釆集、傳輸、存儲、監控、分析處理和展現的能力。在網絡空間的關鍵位置,佈設檢測點,對網絡運行狀態進行檢測,並採集狀態數據。基於各類狀態數據,形成網絡態勢、安全態勢、頻譜態勢等。再通過各種通信手段傳輸到具有數據分析處理能力的節點上,進行態勢數據分析,主要包括態勢融合、態勢評估和態勢預測等。分析處理的結果再傳輸到各級指揮所,並以分層、多維、按需等方式將戰場態勢呈現給各級指揮員。態勢感知的基本流程與傳統方式一致,但每個處理環節都有不同之處。

網絡空間的戰場態勢應該是分層的,有全局的,也有局部的,這對態勢呈現效果提出了更高的要求。隨著呈現技術的不斷發展,簡單的平面態勢圖已不能滿足作戰需求,尤其是在網絡空間作戰環境下,立體、多維的態勢呈現需求凸顯。就算身在指揮所內,通過態勢圖,指揮員也應能洞悉戰場態勢,直面真正的對手。在美國戰爭大片中,經常能夠看到立體的、可觸控的電子沙盤,實時的戰場態勢多維展現,使得指揮官能快速準確決策,提高指揮控制能力。網路空間的戰場環境異常複雜,網絡環境、設備運行情況、軟件運行情況……很多地方都需要有清晰直觀的展現。為了提高用戶體驗,縮短決策時間,網絡空間態勢呈現應具有多維動態特性,並能支持多屏顯示,多屏聯動等。從頂層態勢圖能了解戰爭全貌,從局部態勢圖能了解各級作戰部隊的狀態;不同級別的指揮員基於自身的權限,能夠按需查看不同的態勢圖。

網絡空間作為一種新型的作戰空間,存在和傳統物理空間的客觀差異,網絡空間的指揮控制也存在特殊的需求。然而,網絡空間指揮控制還面臨著其他諸多問題,t匕如如何將網絡空間指揮控制與傳統物理空間指揮控制的體系互相融合、以及如何進行網絡空間指揮控制的效能評估等,這些都是有待進.

Referring url:  http://www.81.cn/

 

 

China’s One Belt One Road Justification for PLA Expeditionary Deployment // 中國解放軍遠征部署的一帶一路理由

China’s One Belt One Road Justification for PLA Expeditionary Deployment // 中國解放軍遠征部署的一帶一路理由

By National Defense University Professor Lieutenant General Qiao Lang 責任編輯︰姜紫微

“One Belt, One Road” cannot open up safety awareness

The Chinese have a problem, they like to talk about strategy, they don’t like to talk about strategies; they like to talk about goals, they don’t like to talk about indicators, so the final result is big and big. If there is no strategy, there is no possibility that this strategy will be realized. If there are targets and no indicators, then to what extent is this goal achieved? This time, the “One Belt and One Road” was proposed. The most worrying thing is that the thunder is loud and the rain is small. The talk is vigorous and vigorous, and finally it is gone. We have done this kind of thing many times, I hope this time is not. Because if the “Belt and Road” fails, it can be a very heavy blow to the revival of the Chinese economy and even the Chinese nation.

Many officials now talk about the “Belt and Road” without talking about security issues, nor about political issues, and no one talking about military issues. Some officials even emphasized that the “Belt and Road” has no political appeals and no ideological appeals. It is entirely an economic behavior. This kind of statement, if it is propaganda to countries along the line, is ok, because strategic intentions always have to be concealed. You say to others that I came with political intentions, with ideological intentions, who? Still accepting you? This is very necessary from the external publicity. However, if this becomes the consciousness of our officials, it is a big mistake. External propaganda said that we have no political demands, no ideological appeals, no military appeals, no geopolitical demands. Our only consideration is to develop the economy, mutual benefit and win-win. It is not wrong to use it as a propaganda, but it must not become our own consciousness. . 

Now I feel that some officials really want to exclude these things. When he says these words, he has already excluded the political demands that are inevitable in the “One Belt, One Road” strategic concept in his own consciousness, especially geopolitics. Appeals, as well as security claims and ideological appeals. In fact, no matter whether you are prepared to “export revolution”, President Xi has repeatedly said that China does not export revolutions, but since we now emphasize Chinese values, there is no doubt that you will export your values ​​through the “Belt and Road”. Then, this value output is actually an ideology output. In addition, in the process of advancing the “Belt and Road”, if you do not have political appeals, you do not have political binding with countries along the route, which will put you in an insecure state. In particular, the “one belt” of the land is accompanied by a very complicated factor, the so-called “Ottoman Wall”. That is, in the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and its enormous empire became the “Ottoman Wall” that blocked the East and West. 300 years later, with the end of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and the “Ottoman Wall” collapsed, but if you follow this path, the places along the way are all Islamic worlds. This means that the implied “Ottoman Wall” is still there. How to break through this invisible wall? Your values ​​are different from those of the Islamic world. Don’t expect that you can completely tie everyone together by simply bundling economic interests. You know, those Islamic countries may just want to make a profit, and then take advantage of it before you open it. What should I do at that time? The biggest lesson for Chinese companies to go out is that after economic cooperation with those countries, people will open us after they have benefited, or they may not open our intentions subjectively, but the objective situation has changed. For example, in Sudan, we invested in it.

The West has to give us trouble. Then there are people in the local area who messed up with us. We bite our heads and start to fail to make a big impact on us. We should earn the money we earned. At this time, the Americans are paying their salaries and turning the Sudan into a North and South Sudan. We are dumbfounded. Your investment is in North Sudan, and the oil field is in South Sudan. At this time, you must suffer losses. However, we Chinese have a very strong ability, which is the ability to “engage” relations. Although the Sudan has split, we have “taken the way” to win South Sudan. It is said that the North and South Sudan will let you take it, should it be able to settle? But the United States has provoked the civil war in South Sudan, and the final goal is to make your investment in this place squander. This is just one example. In fact, our cooperation with all countries, the United States that the United States does not participate in, must oppose. The final outcome is that we have lost in many places, which is why we lacked the necessary security awareness from the beginning.

Original Mandarin Chinese :

“一帶一路”不能甩開安全意識

中國人有一個毛病,喜歡談戰略,不喜歡談策略;喜歡談目標,不喜歡談指標,這樣談來談去最後的結果就都是大而化之。有戰略沒有策略,這個戰略就沒有實現的可能性,有目標沒有指標,那這個目標實現到什麼程度算是實現?這次提出“一帶一路”,最擔心的就是雷聲大、雨點小,談得轟轟烈烈,最後不了了之。這樣的事情我們已經干過多次,但願這次不是。因為如果“一帶一路”失敗的話,那對于中國經濟甚至中華民族的復興都可能是非常沉重的打擊。

現在有很多官員談“一帶一路”都不談安全問題,也不談政治問題,更沒有人談軍事問題。甚至有些官員專門強調,“一帶一路”沒有政治訴求,沒有意識形態訴求,完全是一種經濟行為。這種說法,如果是對沿線國家的宣傳,是可以的,因為戰略意圖總是要有隱蔽性的,你對人家說我是帶著政治意圖來的,帶著意識形態意圖來的,那誰還接受你?這從對外宣傳上講是非常必要的。但是,假如這成了我們官員的自身意識,就大錯特錯了。對外宣傳說我們沒有政治訴求,沒有意識形態訴求,沒有軍事訴求,沒有地緣訴求,我們唯一的考慮就是發展經濟,互利共贏,把它作為一個宣傳口徑沒有錯,但是絕對不能變成我們自身的意識。現在感覺有些官員是真的要排除這些東西,當他說出這些話的時候,就已經在自己的意識中排除“一帶一路”戰略構想中不可避免地內含著的政治訴求,特別是地緣政治訴求,以及安全訴求、意識形態訴求。實際上,不管你準不準備“輸出革命”,習主席多次講到,中國不輸出革命,可是既然我們現在強調中國價值觀,毫無疑問你會通過“一帶一路”輸出自己的價值觀。那麼,這個價值觀輸出其實就是一種意識形態輸出。另外,在推進“一帶一路”的進程中,如果你沒有政治訴求,你沒有與沿線國家的政治綁定,這將使你處于不安全狀態。尤其是陸路的“一帶”,幾乎全程伴有一個非常復雜的因素,就是所謂的“奧斯曼牆”。即15世紀奧斯曼帝國攻克拜佔庭首都君士坦丁堡,使其龐大的帝國之軀成了阻斷東西方的“奧斯曼牆”。300年後,隨著第一次世界大戰的結束,奧斯曼帝國解體,“奧斯曼牆”轟然倒塌,但是如果你沿這條路走下去,沿途所經之地,全都是伊斯蘭世界。這就意味著隱含的“奧斯曼牆”還在。如何去突破這個隱形之牆?你的價值觀和伊斯蘭世界的價值觀不同,不要指望僅僅靠經濟利益的捆綁,就能把大家完全拴在一起。要知道,那些伊斯蘭國家也可能只想獲利,獲了利之後再把你踹開。那個時候怎麼辦?中國企業走出去,我們最大的教訓,就是跟那些國家進行經濟合作之後,人家得利後把我們甩開,或者人家主觀上可能並沒有甩開我們的意圖,但是客觀情況發生了變化。比如蘇丹,我們投資進去了,西方要給我們搗亂,然後當地也有人給我們搞亂,我們硬著頭皮頂住,開始沒給我們造成太大的影響,我們該掙的錢還是掙到了。這時美國人釜底抽薪,把蘇丹變成南北蘇丹,我們傻眼了,你的投資在北蘇丹,而油田在南蘇丹,這個時候,你肯定要受損失。但我們中國人有一項很強的能力,就是攻無不克的“搞關系”的能力,雖然蘇丹分裂了,但是我們“想辦法”把南蘇丹也拿下。按說,南北蘇丹都讓你拿下,應該能擺平了吧?可美國又挑起了南蘇丹的內戰,最後的目標就是讓你在這個地方的投資打水漂。這只是其中一例。實際上我們與所有國家的合作,凡是美國沒有參與的美國都要反對。最後的結局是我們在很多地方都鎩羽而歸,這是我們一開始就缺乏必要的安全意識所致。

“One Belt” is the main one, and “One Road” is the supplement.

Now, we have started a new round of “going out” strategic action. I have suffered so much in the past. Should I accept some lessons?

How to go “One Belt, One Road”? The author believes that we should take a multi-pronged approach, and we should let politics and diplomacy go ahead and the military back. Rather than letting the company go out on its own, it is almost impossible for the company to go out alone. 

From now on, the “Belt and Road” seems to be a two-line attack, both sides. In fact, the “band” is the main one, and the “road” is secondary. Because you want to take the “road” as the main direction, you will die. Because of the sea route, a scholar from the American War College recently wrote an article saying that they have found a way to deal with China, that is, as long as the sea passage is cut off, China will die. Although this statement is somewhat large, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no reason at all, because the United States now has this capability from the military. This also confirms from the opposite side that in the choice of the primary and secondary direction of the “Belt and Road”, we should determine who is the main road and who is the auxiliary road. If the “Belt and Road” is likened to a combat operation, then “all the way” is the auxiliary direction, and the “one belt” is the main direction.

Therefore, for us, what really matters in the future is how to manage the “one area” problem, rather than the “one way” problem. Then, the operation of the “Belt” will first face a relationship with the countries along the route, that is, how to first open up the relationship with the countries along the route. Judging from our current practice, it is obviously not enough to ensure the smooth and smooth operation of the “Belt and Road”. why? We used to always like to deal with the government, like to deal with the ruling party, like to deal with the rich people in this country, who is dealing with who is in position, who has money to deal with who. In this case, it will be difficult to succeed. In fact, what is the work we are going to do? It is necessary to deal with the government, with the ruling party, with the opposition party, and more importantly, with the tribal elders in the entire “Belt”. These tribal elders are often much more influential than the opposition parties and the ruling party. What we can do in the Taliban-occupied areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan is almost always achieved through tribal elders, and basically nothing can be done through the government. Therefore, our foreign ministry and our enterprises cannot ignore the important relationships in these regions.

Why not Latin America and Japan “take in”?

“One Belt, One Road” has another problem that no one has touched until today. It is the question in some people’s hearts. Does China want to use the “Belt and Road” to exclude the United States? There is no doubt that the United States plays a chaotic role in almost all international organizations and international operations in which it does not participate. As long as it doesn’t play a leading role, even if it’s not the initiator, it will give you trouble. Take a look at APEC. Why is there a TPP after APEC? It is because the United States finds itself unable to play a leading role in APEC, it must do another set and start a new stove. If the “Belt and Road” completely excludes the United States, it will make the United States spare no effort to suppress it, and since the United States is not in it, it will not be scrupulous if it is suppressed, because it has no interest in it, so it will be unscrupulous and unscrupulous when it is suppressed. Soft hands.

Therefore, the author believes that China’s “Belt and Road” should skillfully include the United States. It should allow US investment banks, US investment institutions, and American technology to play a role in the “Belt and Road” to complete the “Belt and Road” approach to the United States. Bundle. After completing this bundle, the United States will vote for it when it starts. Take a look at China and the United States to fight for economic shackles and trade, why do they end up every time? It is because the economic interests of China and the United States are very closely tied to each other. Every time the United States wants to impose sanctions or punishment on a certain industry or enterprise in China, there must be a related out-of-hospital system in which the United States and our enterprise are bound together. The group went to Congress to lobby and finally let it die. Therefore, we must let the United States enter this interest bundle. In terms of capital and technology, the “Belt and Road” should not only exclude the United States, but also pull it in and complete the bundling of it.

From this I think that we can’t even exclude Japan. Can’t think that who is not good with us, make trouble with us, I will set aside to open you up. In fact, this is not good for the other side, and it is not good for yourself. Once you open it, it will be unscrupulous when you hit it. Only when its interests are in it, it will only be scrupulous when it hits you, and it will be careful to protect its interests. And if the benefits are completely tied, it can’t be picked up, so I think this is something we must consider.

“One Belt, One Road” to lead the reform of the Chinese army

Up to now, there is no precise strategic positioning for our country, and the national strategy is somewhat vague. As a result, various so-called “strategies” emerge in an endless stream. What is most screaming in 2014 is not the “Belt and Road”. What is it? It is China’s desire to become a major ocean power and to launch China’s marine development strategy. What kind of marine development strategy do you want? Some people say that they have to break through the three island chains and go out to the Pacific. What are you going to the Pacific Ocean? Have we thought about it? Think through it? If you don’t think through it, you shouldn’t put forward a strategy that is extremely hard to burn and has no results. Now that we have proposed the “Belt and Road”, we suddenly discovered that what we need more is the Army’s expeditionary ability. So what is our Army today? The Chinese closed their doors and thought that the Chinese Army was the best in the world. The British military leader Montgomery said that whoever wants to play against the Chinese army on land is a fool. The Americans’ conclusion from the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea is that the Chinese must not tolerate the military boots of American soldiers on the land of China. This is no problem. The Chinese Army has no problem with its existing capabilities to protect the country. However, once faced with the “Belt and Road”, the task of the Chinese Army is not to defend the country, which requires you to have the ability to display the land expedition along the way. Because the light is on land, there are 22 countries that can count. This requires us to have to go to the sword. Instead of invading others, we must be able to protect our own national interests across borders.

The last point is how to focus on the development of military power. If we have made it clear that the “one belt” is the main direction, it is not just an effort to develop the navy. The Navy must of course develop according to the needs of the country, and the problem that is now emerging is precisely how to strengthen the Army’s expeditionary capabilities. There are no more problems in China’s more than one million army, and there is no problem in defending the country. Is there any problem in going abroad to fight? Are we now in the right direction for the Army? Is it reasonable? When the world is now abandoning heavy tanks, we are still proud of the heavy tanks we have just produced. In what areas will these things be used in the future? In the entire “one belt” road, heavy tanks have no room for development. The heavy tanks of the former Soviet Union allowed the guerrillas to knock casually in Afghanistan. Why? Where can you go in all the ravines? The tank can’t fly anymore. In the end, the people take the rocket launcher and aim at one. It is all one, and it will kill you all. Therefore, the Army’s combat capability must be re-enhanced, that is, to strengthen its long-range delivery capability and long-range strike capability. In this regard, the author thinks that we are far from realizing it, and it is even more impossible. If the Army does not have the ability to go abroad, in the future, in any “one area”, if there is civil strife or war in any country, China needs support, and we need to protect our facilities and interests along the way, the Army can go, Is it useful? This is a question we must think about today.

So what should the Army do? The author believes that the Chinese Army must fly and must achieve aviation aviation, which means a revolution in the entire Chinese Army. Today, when we talk about the reform of the military system, if you don’t know the country’s strategy at all, don’t know the country’s needs, and close the door to reform, what kind of army will you reform? What is the relationship between this army and national interests? If you don’t start from the national interests and needs, just draw your own scoops like the US military’s gourd, take it for granted that you should be an army, but the country does not need such an army, but needs a development demand with the country. Match the army, what do you do then? Therefore, if we don’t understand what the country’s needs are, and don’t know where the country’s interests are, we will close the door to carry out reforms. What kind of army will this change? The author believes that the “Belt and Road” is a huge drag on the reform of the Chinese military with national interests and needs. It is through the strategic design of the “Belt and Road” that the country has determined its strategic needs for the military. The conclusion is: China must have a stronger army, and a navy and air force that can work together and act in concert, an army, navy, and air force that can cross the country’s expedition, and still have thousands of miles away. With sufficient support and combat capability of the Expeditionary Force, we can make the “Belt and Road” truly secure in terms of security, thus ensuring the ultimate realization of this ambitious goal.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

“一帶”為主,“一路”為輔

現在,我們又開始新一輪的“走出去”戰略行動了,前面吃了那麼多苦頭,總該接受點教訓吧?

“一帶一路”怎麼走? 筆者認為應該多管齊下,應該讓政治、外交先行,軍事做後盾。而不是讓企業自己單打獨斗走出去,凡是企業單獨走出去的幾乎就沒有能夠全身而退的。

從現在來看,“一帶一路”好像是兩線出擊,雙路並舉。其實,“帶”是主要的,“路”是次要的。因為你要是以“路”為主攻方向,你就死定了。因為海路這一條,美國戰爭學院的一個學者最近專門撰文,說他們已經找到了對付中國的辦法,就是只要掐斷海上通道,中國就死定了。這話雖然說的有些大,但也不能說完全沒有一點道理,因為美國眼下從軍事上講確有這個能力。這也從反面印證,在“一帶一路”主次方向的選擇上,我們應確定誰為主路,誰為輔路。如果把“一帶一路”比喻成一次作戰行動,那麼,“一路”是輔攻方向,“一帶” 則是主攻方向。

所以說,對于我們來講,將來真正重要的是如何經營“一帶”的問題,而不是經營“一路”的問題。那麼,經營“一帶”首先就面臨一個與沿途國家的關系問題,即如何先把與沿途國家的關系全部打通。從我們現在的做法來看,顯然不足以保證“一帶一路”的順利通暢和成功。為什麼呢?我們習慣上總是喜歡跟政府打交道,喜歡跟執政黨打交道,喜歡跟這個國家的有錢人打交道,誰在位跟誰打交道,誰有錢跟誰打交道。這樣的話,要想成功就很難。實際上我們要做的工作是什麼呢?既要跟政府、跟執政黨打交道,還要跟在野黨打交道,而更重要的是,跟整個“一帶”上的部落長老們打交道。這些部落長老往往比在野黨和執政黨的影響力大得多。我們在阿富汗、巴基斯坦的塔利班佔領地區能辦成什麼事,幾乎都是通過部落長老去實現,通過政府基本上干不成什麼事情。所以,我們的外交部、我們的企業,都不能忽略這些區域內的重要關系。

何不拉美日“入伙”?

“一帶一路”還有一個到今天都沒有人去觸及的問題,就是一些人心中的疑問︰中國是否想用“一帶一路”排斥美國?毫無疑問,美國幾乎在所有它沒能參與的國際組織和國際行動中,都會扮演搗亂的角色。只要它起不了主導作用,甚至只要它不是發起人,它就會給你搗亂。看一看APEC。APEC之後為什麼會出現TPP?就是因為美國發現自己在APEC中不能起主導作用,它就一定要另搞一套,另起爐灶。如果“一帶一路”完全排斥美國,那將使美國不遺余力地打壓它,而且由于美國不在其中,它打壓起來就沒有顧忌,因為它沒有利益在里邊,所以它打壓起來就會無所顧忌、毫不手軟。

所以筆者認為,中國的“一帶一路”應該巧妙地把美國納入進來,應該讓美國的投行、美國的投資機構,以及美國的技術,在“一帶一路”中發揮作用,完成“一帶一路”對美國的捆綁。完成了這個捆綁之後,美國在它下手的時候就會投鼠忌器。看一看中國和美國打經濟仗、打貿易仗,為什麼每一次都無疾而終?就是因為中國和美國的經濟利益互相捆綁得非常緊密,每一次美國要對中國的某一個行業或企業進行制裁或者是懲罰的時候,一定會有美國和我們這個企業綁定在一起的相關的院外集團跑到國會去游說,最後讓其胎死腹中。所以,一定要讓美國進入這個利益捆綁。“一帶一路”在資金上、技術上,不但不應排斥美國,還要把它拉進來,完成對它的捆綁。

由此筆者想到,我們甚至也不能排斥日本。不能認為誰不跟我們好,跟我們鬧,我就另外搞一套把你甩開,其實這于對方不利,對自己同樣不利。你一旦甩開了它,它打你也就無所顧忌,只有當它的利益也在其中的時候,它打你才會有所顧忌,它才會小心翼翼,保護它那一份利益。而如果利益完全捆綁的話,它想摘都摘不清,所以筆者覺得這一點也是我們必須考慮的。

“一帶一路”牽引中國軍隊改革

到現在為止,就是對我們國家沒有精確的戰略定位,國家戰略有些模糊。結果,各種所謂的“戰略”層出不窮。2014年喊得最響的不是“一帶一路”,是什麼呢?是中國要成為海洋大國,要推出中國的海洋發展戰略。你要什麼樣的海洋發展戰略?有人說要突破三條島鏈,走出去,走向太平洋。到太平洋去干什麼?我們想過嗎?想透了嗎?如果沒想透,就不宜提出那些遠水不解近渴的極度燒錢又不見成果的戰略。現在提出“一帶一路”,我們突然發現,我們更需要的是陸軍的遠征能力。那今天我們的陸軍究竟如何?中國人關起門來認為中國陸軍天下第一。英國人蒙哥馬利說,誰要在陸上跟中國的陸軍交手,誰就是傻瓜。而美國人由抗美援朝戰爭得出的結論是︰中國人絕對不能容忍美國大兵的軍靴踏到中國的陸地上。這都沒問題,中國陸軍以它現有的能力保家衛國一點問題都沒有。可是一旦面對“一帶一路”,中國陸軍擔負的任務就不是保家衛國,這就需要你具備在沿途展示陸上遠征的能力。因為光是陸上,能夠數出來的就有22個國家。這就需要我們必須劍到履到。不是去侵略別人,而是要有能力跨境保護我們自己的國家利益。

最後一點,就是如何有側重地發展軍事力量的問題。如果我們明確了以“一帶”為主攻方向,那就不僅僅是要努力發展海軍的問題。海軍當然要根據國家的需求去發展,而現在凸現的問題,恰恰是如何加強陸軍的遠征能力。中國100多萬陸軍,保家守土沒有問題,跨出國門去作戰有沒有問題?我們現在陸軍的發展方向正確嗎?合理嗎?當現在全世界都開始放棄重型坦克的時候,我們卻還在以剛剛生產出來的重型坦克為榮,這些東西將來準備用在什麼地區作戰?在整個“一帶”這條路上,重型坦克根本沒有施展余地。前蘇聯的重型坦克在阿富汗讓游擊隊隨便敲,為什麼?在所有的山溝溝里,你還能往哪走?坦克又不能飛,最後人家拿火箭筒瞄準一輛就是一輛,全部給你干掉。所以說,陸軍的作戰能力必須重新提升,就是加強它的遠程投送能力和遠程打擊能力。這方面,筆者覺得我們遠遠沒有認識到,更不可能做到。如果陸軍沒有能力走出國門,將來在這“一帶”上,任何一個國家發生了內亂或戰爭,需要中國的支援,而且更需要我們出手保護自己在沿途的設施和利益時,陸軍能走得出去、派得上用場嗎?這是我們今天必須思考的問題。

那麼,陸軍要怎麼辦?筆者認為中國陸軍必須飛起來,必須實現陸軍航空化,這意味著整個中國陸軍的一場革命。今天,當我們談軍隊編制體制改革的時候,如果你根本不知道國家的戰略,也不知道國家的需求,關起門來搞改革,你會改革出一支什麼樣的軍隊來?這支軍隊和國家利益有什麼關系?如果你不從國家利益和需求出發,僅僅比照美軍的葫蘆畫自己的瓢,想當然地認為自己應該是怎樣一支軍隊,可是國家不需要這樣一支軍隊,而是需要一支與國家的發展需求相匹配的軍隊,那時你怎麼辦?所以說,不了解國家的需求是什麼,不知道國家的利益在哪里,就關起門來搞改革,這將會改出一支什麼樣的軍隊?筆者認為,“一帶一路”就是國家利益和需求對中國軍隊改革的一個巨大牽引。國家正是通過“一帶一路”的戰略設計,確定了對軍隊的戰略需求。結論是︰中國必須有一支更強大的陸軍,以及一支能與之聯合作戰、協同行動的海軍和空軍,一支能夠跨出國門遠征的陸軍、海軍和空軍,組成在千里萬里之外仍然有足夠的保障和戰斗能力的遠征軍,我們才可能使“一帶一路”真正在安全上獲得可靠的保障,從而確保這一宏偉目標的最終實現。

Referring url: http://www.81.cn/big5/

Chinese Military Informationized Warfare – Integrating New Combined Arms // 中國軍事信息化戰爭 – 整合新型聯合武器

Chinese Military Informationized Warfare – Integrating New Combined Arms // 中國軍事信息化戰爭 – 整合新型聯合武器

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. Today’s “Liberation Army Daily” article pointed out that the integration of military services and eventually moving toward integration is the inherent requirement of informationized warfare and the basic law of military construction and development. In seeking the initiative of army building, we should make forward-looking decisions in promoting the integration of the military and plan ahead.

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

By – 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:

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。今天的《解放軍報》刊文指出,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。謀求軍隊建設的主動性,我們就應該在推進軍隊一體化建設上前瞻決策,未雨綢繆。

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

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 Chinese Military URL: http://www.81.cn