Tag Archives: Chinese Military Analsysis of US Military Cyber Warfare Capability

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” //


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:



















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


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?


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:










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”。


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:





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。



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。








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:



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。



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:




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?



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


Chinese Military Analysis of US Navy Cyber Warfare Efforts // 中國對美國海軍網絡戰爭的軍事分析

Chinese Military Analysis of US Navy Cyber Warfare Efforts //



US Navy’s 10th Fleet. As the naval task force, the US Fleet cyber command is the Navy’s second-level command, which is part of the Naval Combat Command. Its main task is to guide the cyber operations in defense, and to support the combat troops to carry out deterrence, repel violations, and guarantee. Freedom of movement. Our mission is similar to that of other military cyberspace commanders. It is responsible for carrying out combat operations in the fields of network, password, signal intelligence, information warfare, cyberspace, electronic warfare, and space to support sea and land. Combat power. Naval operations require the integration of traditional combat capabilities, the expansion of new capabilities, and the development of capabilities across networks, signal intelligence systems, and electronic warfare systems to achieve the full development of our cyberspace combat capabilities. Similarly, we are also responsible for organizing and commanding the Navy’s global cryptographic operations, integrating information operations and space operations.


The Tenth Fleet was established during the Second World War and developed anti-submarine warfare capabilities primarily in the Atlantic. At that time, we were faced with a hostile threat that greatly exceeded the combat capability of World War I, and its ability to change the situation was very strong. The Tenth Fleet without any warships defeated the German submarines through intelligence fusion, innovative tactics, technology, and processes. Today, the rebuilt Tenth Fleet still adheres to these operational concepts. Together with information warfare experts, intelligence specialists, password and electronic warfare experts, and traditional military experts, we command operations to ensure the flexibility of operations and respond to changing hostile threats. The focus of the fleet cyber command is to enable the navy to quickly respond to cyber threats and maintain information superiority. This framework of action requires us to complete the task of cyber operations defense.

To win in modern warfare, we must have the ability to move freely in the full spectrum electromagnetic space, and its defense range has expanded from ordinary electromagnetic interference to advanced network intrusion and malicious attacks. The function of the fleet cyber command is to analyze this threat, innovate tactics, techniques, and processes to protect the network and ensure freedom of movement.

Naval operations are dynamic, and the naval network also has time and space complexity. The Navy must not only be deployed in various oceans, but also support ground operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. We currently have more than 10,000 naval officers and men involved in these ground operations.

The Fleet Cyber ​​Command is a global command with the ability to maintain network strength and conduct cyber operations worldwide, and to ensure that the operational capabilities of the cyber operations are commanded in a full spectrum electromagnetic space. Since the Commander of the Tenth Fleet is a combat-level commander, our command is also based on the structure of a typical naval mission force. This power structure can assign subordinate missions to regional missions to support specific password requirements. This task force has been designed to take into account the changing intelligence, skills and responsibilities, has the ability to respond quickly to the fleet’s operational missions, and has facilitated local communication and collaboration with the US Cyber ​​Command and the Division. We have been working to develop a robust organizational structure that provides rapid and direct support for a variety of operations.

The Cyber ​​Warfare Command (CTF1010) is responsible for naval cyber operations, and its subordinate units include the Atlantic and Pacific Regional Naval Computer and Telecommunications Ground Master Station (NCTAMS), which provides network guidance, maintenance, and shoreline relay. The Navy Cyber ​​Defense Operations Command (CTF 1020) is responsible for network defense. The unit is responsible for monitoring cyber threats and monitoring network response.

Norfolk’s Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1030) specializes in naval information operations, with its task force located in San Diego and Whidbey Island. Texas Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1040), Georgia Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1050), Maryland Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1060), Colorado Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1080 And its subordinate headquarters around the world to coordinate the fleet and theater operations. The password action is the responsibility of the CTF 1000 power structure.

The Hutland Naval Information Operations Center (CTF 1090) is based on our research and development brigade and its main mission is to provide battlefield preparation techniques for supporting fleet and joint operations missions.

The successful completion of the mission must be based on efficient recruitment and training of personnel who must have a keen technical insight and the ability to apply personal skills to fleet defensive operations. I have checked almost all of the combatant commands, and I can assure the committee that the Navy has a group of outstanding combatants who are ready to conduct cyberspace operations. Due to the dynamic nature of the cyberspace space, we must continue to advance the development of combat forces. We have taken the initiative to set up new expert officers including cyber engineers and warrants. The construction of the National Naval Academy cyber curriculum will also provide new opportunities for student education, and these students will become the backbone of the naval cyber operations command.


As the fleet cyber command is maturing, we are also trying to learn to use the technology of the brother service. As the support command of the National Cyber ​​Command, we also contacted personnel from other service departments to establish a defense system to improve resilience and enhance the robustness and adaptability of global cyber defense. If a service department discovers, analyzes, or destroys a threat, the information is quickly distributed to other services, minimizing the damage and achieving a joint response.

In fact, we have already started to act. Since the establishment in January, we have been involved in supporting the National Pacific Command and Pacific Fleet exercises with the National Cyber ​​Command. We enhance shared situational awareness and collaborative surveillance security capabilities by examining cyber operations. We also work with industry, academia, and the Federal Fund Research and Development Center to learn to leverage their knowledge and capabilities. The business sector is driving the development of the cyberspace sector, and we must get their capabilities and financial support.

Inter-domain coordination and interaction are extremely important. Safeguarding system security or network defense work must be coordinated with preventing our system from unintentionally interfering with work. From navigation systems to network access, from the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft to the shipboard SLQ-32 jammers, the Tenth Fleet quickly integrates with other numbering fleets and regional naval department commanders to meet their mission requirements. The collaboration between the fleet staff is one of the key factors behind the achievements of the Tenth Fleet and one of the reasons for our initial success.

The ability of the staff and commanders at Ft. Meade has improved every month. At present, there are 130 staff officers and commanders in our department, which will increase to about 200 in recent years. This growth rate guarantees that the command will not only increase the number of technical experts, but also increase the number of people with operational experience who can get rid of the numerous challenges related to cyber security.

These challenges include: developing and maintaining the concept of viewing the network as a battle space; providing support across the services to maintain our freedom of movement in the cyberspace; developing cyber operations into a functional area and creating a series of detailed concepts .

As our capabilities continue to grow, we will have better support for fleet and joint exercise capabilities, and through their necessary feedback to improve our combat capabilities in hostile or cyberspace environments. This feedback is very important, and it enables us to assess and improve our capabilities to support freedom of action in the face of stronger threats. These threats will not only affect the Navy or the Department of Defense system, but also civilian users, and they may be sources of non-traditional threats. There is no doubt that the people of non-state entities are also looking for the means and capabilities that affect our networks, so as a country, we must be prepared to deal with these asymmetric challenges and threats.

The US Fleet Cyber ​​Command is also the authoritative operational arm of the Navy in electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum operations. By working with other services, we are working hard to develop a comprehensive joint electromagnetic spectrum operational plan. All radio frequency users have proven that it is not enough to defend against dynamic targeted network attacks. We must also have a network protection network in full-dimensional space. ability.

Every day, my staff are working hard to go beyond the traditional field and apply their expertise to the cyberspace field. I am very proud of it. This is the environment we create to nurture and use future domain experts. The Ministry of Defence is not comparable to the industry in terms of monetary subsidies, but we are able to provide our staff with a wider range of education and training opportunities and help them gain leadership experience that is not available elsewhere.

Original Mandarin Chinese:








網絡戰司令部(CTF1010)負責海軍網絡作戰,其下屬單位包括大西洋和太平洋地區性海軍計算機與遠程通信地面主站(NCTAMS),該主站能夠提供網絡引導、維護和岸艦中繼。海軍賽博防禦作戰司令部(CTF 1020)負責網絡防禦,該單位主要負責監測網絡威脅和監控網絡響應。

諾福克的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1030)專門負責海軍信息作戰,其特遣大隊位於聖地亞哥和惠德貝島。德克薩斯的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1040),喬治亞州的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1050),馬里蘭的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1060),科羅拉多的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1080 )及其覆蓋全球的下屬司令部來負責協同艦隊和戰區作戰。密碼行動由CTF 1000力量結構負責。

休特蘭海軍信息作戰中心(CTF 1090)在我們的研究與開發大隊基礎上建立,其主要任務是為支援艦隊和聯合作戰任務提供戰場準備技術。







在Ft. Meade的參謀和指揮人員的能力素質每個月都有提高。目前我部指揮參謀人員有130名,在近幾年將會增加到200名左右。這個增長速率保證司令部不僅要增加技術專家型人員,還要增加哪些富有作戰經驗的人員,他們能夠從賽博安全相關的大量挑戰中擺脫出來。





Original referring 2011 url:  http://www.china.com.cn/military/txt/2011-02