18 January 2000. Thanks to MD.

Source: http://www.terrorism.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf (228 pages; 389K)

This document is available Zipped: http://cryptome.org/cuw.zip (188K)

FBIS is the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which collects and translates reports from around the globe.

[No date]

Unrestricted Warfare

Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui

(Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)

Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)

[FBIS Editor's Note: The following selections are taken from "Unrestricted Warfare," a book published in China in February 1999 which proposes tactics for developing countries, in particular China, to compensate for their military inferiority vis-à-vis the United States during a high-tech war. The selections include the table of contents, preface, afterword, and biographical information about the authors printed on the cover. The book was written by two PLA senior colonels from the younger generation of Chinese military officers and was published by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing, suggesting that its release was endorsed by at least some elements of the PLA leadership. This impression was reinforced by an interview with Qiao and laudatory review of the book carried by the party youth league's official daily Zhongguo Qingnian Bao on 28 June.

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed. In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it." (see FBIS translation of the interview, OW2807114599).

[End FBIS Editor's Note]

THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 1

Part One: On New Warfare 8

Chapter 1: The Weapons Revolution Which Invariably Comes First 15

Chapter 2: The War God's Face Has Become Indistinct 36

Chapter 3: A Classic That Deviates From the Classics 61

Chapter 4: What Do Americans Gain By Touching the Elephant? 84

Part Two: A Discussion of New Methods of Operation 114

Chapter 5: New Methodology of War Games 124

Chapter 6: Seeking Rules of Victory: The Force Moves Away From the Point of the Enemy's Attack 152

Chapter 7: Ten Thousand Methods Combined as One: Combinations That Transcend Boundaries 179

Chapter 8: Essential Principles 204

Conclusion 220

Afterword 225

Authors' Background 227

[pp 1-5 in original]

[FBIS Translated Text] Everyone who has lived through the last decade of the 20th century will have a profound sense of the changes in the world. We don't believe that there is anyone who would claim that there has been any decade in history in which the changes have been greater than those of this decade. Naturally, the causes behind the enormous changes are too numerous to mention, but there are only a few reasons that people bring up repeatedly. One of those is the Gulf War.

One war changed the world. Linking such a conclusion to a war which occurred one time in a limited area and which only lasted 42 days seems like something of an exaggeration. However, that is indeed what the facts are, and there is no need to enumerate one by one all the new words that began to appear after 17 January 1991. It is only necessary to cite the former Soviet Union, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, cloning, Microsoft, hackers, the Internet, the Southeast Asian financial crisis, the euro, as well as the world's final and only superpower -- the United States. These are sufficient. They pretty much constitute the main subjects on this planet for the past decade.

However, what we want to say is that all these are related to that war, either directly or indirectly. However, we definitely do not intend to mythicize war, particularly not a lopsided war in which there was such a great difference in the actual power of the opposing parties. Precisely the contrary. In our in-depth consideration of this war, which changed the entire world in merely half a month, we have also noted another fact, which is that war itself has now been changed. We discovered that, from those wars which could be described in glorious and dominating terms, to the aftermath of the acme of what it has been possible to achieve to date in the history of warfare, that war, which people originally felt was one of the more important roles to be played out on the world stage, has at one stroke taken the seat of a B actor.

A war which changed the world ultimately changed war itself. This is truly fantastic, yet it also causes people to ponder deeply. No, what we are referring to are not changes in the instruments of war, the technology of war, the modes of war, or the forms of war. What we are referring to is the function of warfare. Who could imagine that an insufferably arrogant actor, whose appearance has changed the entire plot, suddenly finds that he himself is actually the last person to play this unique role. Furthermore, without waiting for him to leave the stage, he has already been told that there is no great likelihood that he will again handle an A role, at least not a central role in which he alone occupies center stage. What kind of feeling would this be?

Perhaps those who feel this most deeply are the Americans, who probably should be counted as among the few who want to play all the roles, including savior, fireman, world policeman, and an emissary of peace, etc. In the aftermath of "Desert Storm," Uncle Sam has not been able to again achieve a commendable victory. Whether it was in Somalia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, this has invariably been the case. In particular, in the most recent action in which the United States and Britain teamed up to carry out air attacks on Iraq, it was the same stage, the same method, and the same actors, but there was no way to successfully perform the magnificent drama that had made such a profound impression eight years earlier. Faced with political, economic, cultural, diplomatic, ethnic, and religious issues, etc., that are more complex than they are in the minds of most of the military men in the world, the limitations of the military means, which had heretofore always been successful, suddenly became apparent. However, in the age of "might makes right" -- and most of the history of this century falls into this period -- these were issues which did not constitute a problem. The problem is that the U.S.-led multinational forces brought this period to a close in the desert region of Kuwait, thus beginning a new period.

At present it is still hard to see if this age will lead to the unemployment of large numbers of military personnel, nor will it cause war to vanish from this world. All these are still undetermined. The only point which is certain is that, from this point on, war will no longer be what it was originally. Which is to say that, if in the days to come mankind has no choice but to engage in war, it can no longer be carried out in the ways with which we are familiar. It is impossible for us to deny the impact on human society and its soul of the new motivations represented by economic freedom, the concept of human rights, and the awareness of environmental protection, but it is certain that the metamorphosis of warfare will have a more complex backdrop. Otherwise, the immortal bird of warfare will not be able to attain nirvana when it is on the verge of decline: When people begin to lean toward and rejoice in the reduced use of military force to resolve conflicts, war will be reborn in another form and in another arena, becoming an instrument of enormous power in the hands of all those who harbor intentions of controlling other countries or regions. In this sense, there is reason for us to maintain that the financial attack by George Soros on East Asia, the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy by Usama Bin Laden, the gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the disciples of the Aum Shinri Kyo, and the havoc wreaked by the likes of Morris Jr. on the Internet, in which the degree of destruction is by no means second to that of a war, represent semi-warfare, quasi-warfare, and sub-warfare, that is, the embryonic form of another kind of warfare.

But whatever you call them, they cannot make us more optimistic than in the past. We have no reason for optimism. This is because the reduction of the functions of warfare in a pure sense does not mean at all that war has ended. Even in the so-called post-modern, post-industrial age, warfare will not be totally dismantled. It has only re-invaded human society in a more complex, more extensive, more concealed, and more subtle manner. It is as Byron said in his poem mourning Shelley, "Nothing has happened, he has only undergone a sea change." War which has undergone the changes of modern technology and the market system will be launched even more in atypical forms. In other words, while we are seeing a relative reduction in military violence, at the same time we definitely are seeing an increase in political, economic, and technological violence. However, regardless of the form the violence takes, war is war, and a change in the external appearance does not keep any war from abiding by the principles of war.

If we acknowledge that the new principles of war are no longer "using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one's will," but rather are "using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one's interests."

This represents change. A change in war and a change in the mode of war occasioned by this. So, just what has led to the change? What kind of changes are they? Where are the changes headed? How does one face these changes? This is the topic that this book attempts to touch on and shed light on, and it is also our motivation in deciding to write this book.

[Written on 17 January 1999, the 8th anniversary of the outbreak of the Gulf War]

[pp. 1-9 in original]

"Although ancient states were great, they inevitably perished when they were fond of war" -- Sima Rangju, Technology is the Totem of Modern Man [1]

Stirred by the warm breeze of utilitarianism, it is not surprising that technology is more in favor with people than science is. The age of great scientific discoveries had already been left behind before Einstein's time. However, modern man is increasingly inclined to seeing all his dreams come true during his lifetime. This causes him, when betting on his own future, to prostrate himself and expect wonders from technology through a 1000-power concave lens. In this way, technology has achieved startling and explosive developments in a rather short period of time, and this has resulted in innumerable benefits for mankind, which is anxious for quick success and instant rewards. However, we proudly term this technological progress, not realizing that at this time we have already consigned ourselves to a benighted technological age in which we have lost our hearts [2].

Technology today is becoming increasingly dazzling and uncontrollable. Bell Labs and Sony continue to put out novel toys, Bill Gates opens new "Windows" each year, and "Dolly," the cloned sheep, proves that mankind is now planning to take the place of God the Creator. The fearsome Russian-built SU-27 fighter has not been put to use on any battlefield, and already the SU-35 has emerged to strike a pose [3], but whether or not, once it has exhausted its time in the limelight, the SU-35 will be able to retire having rendered meritorious service is still a matter of considerable doubt. Technology is like "magic shoes" on the feet of mankind, and after the spring has been wound tightly by commercial interests, people can only dance along with the shoes, whirling rapidly in time to the beat that they set.

The names Watt and Edison are nearly synonymous with great technical inventions, and using these great technological masters to name their age may be said to be reasonable. However, from then on, the situation changed, and the countless and varied technological discoveries of the past 100 years or so makes it difficult for the appearance of any new technology to take on any self-importance in the realm of human life. While it may be said that the formulations of "the age of the steam engine" and "the age of electrification" can be said to be names which reflect the realities of the time, today, with all kinds of new technology continuously beating against the banks of the age so that people scarcely have the time to accord them brief acclaim while being overwhelmed by an even higher and newer wave of technology, the age in which an era could be named for a single new technology or a single inventor has become a thing of the past. This is the reason why, if one calls the current era the "nuclear age" or the "information age," it will still give people the impression that you are using one aspect to typify the whole situation.

There is absolutely no doubt that the appearance of information technology has been good news for human civilization. This is because it is the only thing to date that is capable of infusing greater energy into the technological "plague" that has been released from Pandora's box, and at the same time it also provides a magic charm as a means of controlling it [technology]. It is just that, at present, there is still a question of who in turn will have a magic charm with which to control it [information technology]. The pessimistic viewpoint is that, if this technology develops in a direction which cannot be controlled by man, ultimately it will turn mankind into its victim [4]. However, this frightening conclusion is totally incapable of reducing people's ardor for it.

The optimistic prospects that it displays itself are intensely seductive for mankind, which has a thirst for technical progress. After all, its unique features of exchanging and sharing represent the light of intelligence which we can hope will lead mankind out of the barbarism of technology, although this is still not sufficient to make us like those futurists who cannot see the forest for the trees, and who use its name to label the entire age. Its characteristics are precisely what keep it from being able to replace the various technologies that we already have in great quantity, that are just emerging, or which are about to be born, particularly those such as biotechnology, materials technology, and nanotechnology, these technologies which have a symbiotic relationship with information technology in which they rely on and promote one another.

Over the past 300 years, people have long since become accustomed to blindly falling in love with the new and discarding the old in the realm of technology, and the endless pursuit of new technology has become a panacea to resolve all the difficult questions of existence. Infatuated with it, people have gradually gone astray. Just as one will often commit ten other mistakes to cover up one, to solve one difficult problem people do not hesitate to bring ten more on themselves [5]. For example, for a more convenient means of transportation, people invented cars, but a long string of problems followed closely on the heels of the automobile -- mining and smelting, mechanical processing, oil extraction, rubber refining, and road-building, etc., which in turn required a long string of technical means to solve, until ultimately it led to pollution of the environment, destroying resources, taking over farmland, traffic accidents, and a host of thornier problems. In the long run, comparing the original goal of using cars for transportation with these derivative problems, it almost seems unimportant. In this way, the irrational expansion of technology causes mankind to continually lose his goals in the complex ramifications of the tree of technology, losing his way and forgetting how to get back. We may as well dub this phenomenon the "ramification effect." Fortunately, at this time, modern information technology made its appearance. We can say with certainty that this is the most important revolution in the history of technology. Its revolutionary significance is not merely in that it is a brand new technology itself, but more in that it is a kind of bonding agent which can lightly penetrate the layers of barriers between technologies and link various technologies which appear to be totally unrelated. Through its bonding, not only is it possible to derive numerous new technologies which are neither one thing nor the other while they also represent this and that, and furthermore it also provides a kind of brand new approach to the relationship between man and technology.

Only from the perspective of mankind can mankind clearly perceive the essence of technology as a tool, and only then can he avoid becoming a slave to technology -- to the tool -- during the process of resolving the difficult problems he faces in his existence. Mankind is completely capable of fully developing his own powers of imagination so that, when each technology is used its potential is exhausted, and not being like a bear breaking off corncobs, only able to continually use new technology to replace the old. Today, the independent use of individual technologies is now becoming more and more unimaginable. The emergence of information technology has presented endless possibilities for match-ups involving various old and new technologies and among new and advanced technologies. Countless facts have demonstrated that the integrated use of technology is able to promote social progress more than even the discovery of the technology [6].

The situation of loud solo parts is in the process of being replaced by a multi-part chorus. The general fusion of technology is irreversibly guiding the rising globalization trend, while the globalization trend in turn is accelerating the process of the general fusion of technology, and this is the basic characteristic of our age.

This characteristic will inevitably project its features on every direction of the age, and naturally the realm of war will be no exception. No military force that thirsts for modernization can get by without nurturing new technology, while the demands of war have always been the midwife of new technology. During the Gulf War, more than 500 kinds of new and advanced technology of the 80s ascended the stage to strike a pose, making the war simply seem like a demonstration site for new weaponry. However, the thing that left a profound impression on people was not the new weaponry per se, but was rather the trend of systemization in the development and use of the weapons. Like the "Patriots" intercepting the "Scuds," it seemed as simple as shooting birds with a shotgun, while in fact it involved numerous weapons deployed over more than half the globe:

After a DSP satellite identified a target, an alarm was sent to a ground station in Australia, which was then sent to the central command post in Riyadh through the U.S. Cheyenne Mountain command post, after which the "Patriot" operators were ordered to take their battle stations, all of which took place in the mere 90-second alarm stage, relying on numerous relays and coordination of space-based systems and C3I systems, truly a "shot heard 'round the world."

The real-time coordination of numerous weapons over great distances created an unprecedented combat capability, and this was precisely something that was unimaginable prior to the emergence of information technology. While it may be said that the emergence of individual weapons prior to World War II was still able to trigger a military revolution, today no-one is capable of dominating the scene alone.

War in the age of technological integration and globalization has eliminated the right of weapons to label war and, with regard to the new starting point, has realigned the relationship of weapons to war, while the appearance of weapons of new concepts, and particularly new concepts of weapons, has gradually blurred the face of war. Does a single "hacker" attack count as a hostile act or not? Can using financial instruments to destroy a country's economy be seen as a battle? Did CNN's broadcast of an exposed corpse of a U.S. soldier in the streets of Mogadishu shake the determination of the Americans to act as the world's policeman, thereby altering the world's strategic situation? And should an assessment of wartime actions look at the means or the results? Obviously, proceeding with the traditional definition of war in mind, there is no longer any way to answer the above questions. When we suddenly realize that all these non-war actions may be the new factors constituting future warfare, we have to come up with a new name for this new form of war: Warfare which transcends all boundaries and limits, in short: unrestricted warfare.

If this name becomes established, this kind of war means that all means will be in readiness, that information will be omnipresent, and the battlefield will be everywhere. It means that all weapons and technology can be superimposed at will, it means that all the boundaries lying between the two worlds of war and non-war, of military and non-military, will be totally destroyed, and it also means that many of the current principles of combat will be modified, and even that the rules of war may need to be rewritten.

However, the pulse of the God of War is hard to take. If you want to discuss war, particularly the war that will break out tomorrow evening or the morning of the day after tomorrow, there is only one way, and that is to determine its nature with bated breath, carefully feeling the pulse of the God of War today.

Footnotes

[1] In Man and Technology, O. Spengler stated that "like God, our father, technology is eternal and unchanging, like the son of God, it will save mankind, and like the Holy Spirit, it shines upon us." The philosopher Spengler's worship for technology, which was just like that of a theologian for God, was nothing but a manifestation of another type of ignorance as man entered the great age of industrialism, which increasingly flourished in the post-industrial age.

[2] In this regard, the French philosopher and scientist Jean Ladrihre has a unique viewpoint. He believes that science and technology have a destructive effect as well as a guiding effect on culture. Under the combined effects of these two, it is very difficult for mankind to maintain a clear-headed assessment of technology, and we are constantly oscillating between the two extremes of technical fanaticism and "anti-science" movements. Bracing oneself to read through his The Challenge Presented to Cultures by Science and Technology, in which the writing is abstruse but the thinking recondite, may be helpful in observing the impact of technology on the many aspects of human society from a broader perspective.

[3] Although the improvement of beyond visual range (BVR) weapons has already brought about enormous changes in the basic concepts of air combat, after all is said and done it has not completely eliminated short-range combat. The SU-27, which is capable of "cobra" maneuvers and the SU-35, which is capable of "hook" moves, are the most outstanding fighter aircraft to date.

[4] F. G. Ronge [as published 1715 2706 1396 2706] is the sharpest of the technological pessimists. As early as 1939, Ronge had recognized the series of problems that modern technology brings with it, including the growth of technological control and the threat of environmental problems. In his view, technology has already become an unmatched, diabolical force. It has not only taken over nature, it has also stripped away man's freedom. In Being and Time, Martin Heidegger termed technology an "outstanding absurdity," calling for man to return to nature in order to avoid technology, which posed the greatest threat. The most famous technological optimists were [Norbert] Wiener and Steinbuch. In Wiener's Cybernetics, God and Robots, and The Human Use of Human Beings and Steinbuch's The Information Society, Philosophy and Cybernetics, and other such works, we can see the bright prospects that describe for human society, driven by technology.

[5] In David Ehrenfeld's book, The Arrogance of Humanism, he cites numerous examples of this. In Too Clever, Schwartz states that "the resolution of one problem may generate a group of new problems, and these problems may ultimately preclude that kind of resolution." In Rational Consciousness, Rene Dibo [as published 3583 0355 6611 0590] also discusses a similar phenomenon.

[6] In The Age of Science and the Future of Mankind, E. Shulman points out that "during the dynamic development of modern culture, which is based on the explosive development of modern technology, we are increasingly faced with the fact of multidisciplinary cooperation...it is impossible for one special branch of science to guide our practice in a sufficiently scientific manner."

[pp. 10-33 in original]

"As soon as technological advances may be applied to military goals, and furthermore are already used for military purposes, they almost immediately seem obligatory, and also often go against the will of the commanders in triggering changes or even revolutions in the modes of combat" -- Engels

The weapons revolution invariably precedes the revolution in military affairs by one step, and following the arrival of a revolutionary weapon, the arrival of the revolution in military affairs is just a matter of time. The history of warfare is continually providing this kind of proof: bronze or iron spears resulted in the infantry phalanx, and bows and arrows and stirrups provided new tactics for cavalry [1]. Black powder cannons gave rise to a full complement of modern warfare modes....from the time when conical bullets and rifles [2] took to the battlefield as the vanguard of the age of technology, weapons straightaway stamped their names on the chest of warfare.

First, it was the enormous steel-clad naval vessels that ruled the seas, launching the "age of battleships," then its brother the "tank" ruled land warfare, after which the airplane dominated the skies, up until the atomic bomb was born, announcing the approach of the "nuclear age." Today, a multitude of new and advanced technology weapons continues to pour forth, so that weapons have solemnly become the chief representative of war. When people discuss future warfare, they are already quite accustomed to using certain weapons or certain technologies to describe it, calling it "electronic warfare," "precision-weapons warfare," and "information warfare."

Coasting along in their mental orbit, people have not yet noticed that a certain inconspicuous yet very important change is stealthily approaching.

No One Has the Right to Label Warfare

The weapons revolution is a prelude to a revolution in military affairs. What is different than in the past is that the revolution in military affairs that is coming will no longer by driven by one or two individual weapons. In addition to continuing to stimulate people to yearn for and be charmed by new weapons, the numerous technological inventions have also quickly eradicated the mysteries of each kind of weapon. In the past, all that was needed was the invention of a few weapons or pieces of equipment, such as the stirrup and the Maxim machine gun [3], and that was sufficient to alter the form of war, whereas today upwards of 100 kinds of weapons are needed to make up a certain weapons system before it can have an overall effect on war.

However, the more weapons are invented, the smaller an individual weapon's role in war becomes, and this is a paradox that is inherent in the relationship between weapons and war. Speaking in that sense, other than the all-out use of nuclear weapons, a situation which is more and more unlikely and which may be termed nuclear war, none of the other weapons, even those that are extremely revolutionary in nature, possesses the right to label future warfare.

Perhaps it is precisely because people recognize this point that we then have formulations such as "high-tech warfare" and "information warfare" [4], whose intent is to use the broad concept of technology to replace the concept of specific weapons, using a fuzzy-learning approach to resolve this knotty problem. However, it seems that this still is not the way to resolve the problem.

When one delves deeply into this, the term "high-technology"[5], which first appeared in the architectural industry in the United States, is in fact a bit vague. What constitutes high technology? What does it refer to? Logically speaking, high and low are only relative concepts. However, using an extremely mutable concept in this irrational manner to name warfare, which is evolving endlessly, in itself constitutes a considerable problem. When one generation's high technology becomes low technology with the passage of time, are we still prepared to again dub the new toys that continue to appear as being high tech? Or is it possible that, in today's technological explosion, this may result in confusion and trouble for us in naming and using each new technology that appears? Not to mention the question of just what should be the standard to determine whether something is high or not? With regard to technology itself, each technology has specific aspects, which therefore means that each has its time limits. Yesterday's "high" is very possibly today's "low," while today's "new" will in turn become tomorrow's "old."

Compared to the M-60 tank, the "Cobra" helicopter, and the B-52, the main battle weapons of the 60s-70s, the "Abrams" tank, the "Apache" helicopter gunship, the F-117, the "Patriot" missiles, and the "Tomahawk" cruise missiles are high tech. However, faced with the B-2, the F-22, the "Comanche" helicopter, and the "J-Stars" joint-surveillance target-attack radar system, they in turn seem outmoded. It is as if to say there is the concept of high-tech weapons, which is a variable throughout, and which naturally becomes the title of the "bride." Then, as the "flowers bloom each year, but the people change," all that is left is the empty shell of a name, which is continually placed on the head of the girl who is becoming the next "bride." Then, in the chain of warfare with its continuous links, each weapon can go from high to low and from new to old at any time and any place, with time's arrow being unwilling to stop at any point; nor can any weapon occupy the throne of high technology for long. Since this is the case, just what kind of high technology does this so-called high-tech warfare refer to?

High technology, as spoken of in generalities, cannot become a synonym for future warfare, nor is information technology -- which is one of the high technologies of the present age and which seems to occupy an important position in the makeup of all modern weapons -- sufficient to name a war. Even if in future wars all the weapons have information components embedded in them and are fully computerized, we can still not term such war information warfare, and at most we can just call it computerized warfare [6]. This is because, regardless of how important information technology is, it cannot completely supplant the functions and roles of each technology per se. For example, the F-22 fighter, which already fully embodies information technology, is still a fighter, and the "Tomahawk" missile is still a missile, and one cannot lump them all together as information weapons, nor can war which is conducted using these weapons be termed information warfare [7]. Computerized warfare in the broad sense and information warfare in the narrow sense are two completely different things. The former refers to the various forms of warfare which are enhanced and accompanied by information technology, while the latter primarily refers to war in which information technology is used to obtain or suppress information. In addition, the contemporary myth created by information worship has people mistakenly believing that it is the only rising technology, while the sun has already set on all the others. This kind of myth may put more money in the pockets of Bill Gates, but it cannot alter the fact that the development of information technology similarly relies on the development of other technology, and the development of related materials technology is a direct constraint on information technology breakthroughs. For example, the development of biotechnology will determine the future fate of information technology [8]. Speaking of bio-information technology, we may as well return to a previous topic and again make a small assumption:

If people use information-guided bio-weapons to attack a bio-computer, should this be counted as bio-warfare or information warfare? I fear that no one will be able to answer that in one sentence, but this is something which is perfectly capable of happening. Actually, it is basically not necessary for people to wrack their brains over whether or not information technology will grow strong and unruly today, because it itself is a synthesis of other technologies, and its first appearance and every step forward are all a process of blending with other technologies, so that it is part of them, and they are part of it, and this is precisely the most fundamental characteristic of the age of technological integration and globalization. Naturally, like the figures from a steel seal, this characteristic may leave its typical imprint on each modern weapon. We are by no means denying that, in future warfare, certain advanced weapons may play a leading role. However, as for determining the outcome of war, it is now very difficult for anyone to occupy an unmatched position. It may be leading, but it will not be alone, much less never-changing. Which is also to say that there is no one who can unblushingly stamp his own name on a given modern war.

"Fighting the Fight that Fits One's Weapons" and "Making the Weapons to Fit the Fight"

These two sentences, "fight the fight that fits one's weapons" and "build the weapons to fit the fight" show the clear demarcation line between traditional warfare and future warfare, as well as pointing out the relationship between weapons and tactics in the two kinds of war. The former reflects the involuntary or passive adaptation of the relationship of man to weapons and tactics in war which takes place under natural conditions, while the latter suggests the conscious or active choice that people make regarding the same proposition when they have entered a free state. In the history of war, the general unwritten rule that people have adhered to all along is to "fight the fight that fits one's weapons." Very often it is the case that only after one first has a weapon does one begin to formulate tactics to match it. With weapons coming first, followed by tactics, the evolution of weapons has a decisive constraining effect on the evolution of tactics. Naturally, there are limiting factors here involving the age and the technology, but neither can we say that there is no relationship between this and the linear thinking in which each generation of weapons making specialists only thinks about whether or not the performance of the weapon itself is advanced, and does not consider other aspects. Perhaps this is one of the factors why a weapons revolution invariably precedes a revolution in military affairs.

Although the expression "fight the fight that fits one's weapons" is essentially negative in nature because what it leaves unsaid reflects a kind of helplessness, we have no intention of belittling the positive meaning that it has today, and this positive meaning is seeking the optimum tactics for the weapons one has. In other words, seeking the combat mode which represents the best match for the given weapons, thereby seeing that they perform up to their peak values. Today, those engaged in warfare have now either consciously or unconsciously completed the transition of this rule from the negative to the positive. It is just that people still wrongfully believe that this is the only initiative that can be taken by backward countries in their helplessness. They hardly realize that the United States, the foremost power in the world, must similarly face this kind of helplessness. Even though she is the richest in the world, it is not necessarily possible for her to use up her uniform new and advanced technology weapons to fight an expensive modern war [9]. It is just that she has more freedom when it comes to the selection and pairing up of new and old weapons.

If one can find a good point of agreement, which is to say, the most appropriate tactics, the pairing up and use of new and older generation weapons not only makes it possible to eliminate the weakness of uniform weaponry, it may also become a "multiplier" to increase the weapons' effectiveness. The B-52 bomber, which people have predicted on many occasions is long since ready to pass away peacefully, has once again become resplendent after being coupled with cruise missiles and other precision guided weapons, and its wings have not yet rested to date. By the use of external infrared guided missiles, the A-10 aircraft now has night-attack capabilities that it originally lacked, and when paired with the Apache helicopter, they complement each other nicely, so that this weapons platform which appeared in the mid-70s is very imposing.

Obviously, "fight the fight that fits one's weapons" by no means represents passive inaction. For example, today's increasingly open weapons market and multiple supply channels have provided a great deal of leeway with regard to weapons selection, and the massive coexistence of weapons which span multiple generations has provided a broader and more functional foundation for trans-generation weapons combinations than at any age in the past, so that it is only necessary to break with our mental habit of treating the weapons' generations, uses, and combinations as being fixed to be able to turn something that is rotten into something miraculous. If one thinks that one must rely on advanced weapons to fight a modern war, being blindly superstitious about the miraculous effects of such weapons, it may actually result in turning something miraculous into something rotten. We find ourselves in a stage where a revolutionary leap forward is taking place in weapons, going from weapons systems symbolized by gunpowder to those symbolized by information, and this may be a relatively prolonged period of alternating weapons. At present we have no way of predicting how long this period may last, but what we can say for sure is that, as long as this alternation has not come to an end, fighting the kind of battle that fits one's weapons will be the most basic approach for any country in handling the relationship between weapons and combat, and this includes the United States, the country which has the most advanced weapons. What must be pointed out is that, the most basic thing is not the thing with the greatest future. Aggressive initiatives under negative preconditions is only a specific approach for a specific time, and by no means constitutes an eternal rule. In man's hands, scientific progress has long since gone from passive discovery to active invention, and when the Americans proposed the concept of "building the weapons to fit the fight," it triggered the greatest single change in the relationship between weapons and tactics since the advent of war.

First determine the mode of combat, then develop the weapons, and in this regard, the first stab that the Americans took at this was "Air-Land battle," while the currently popular "digitized battlefield" and "digitized units" [10] which have given rise to much discussion represent their most recent attempt. This approach indicates that the position of weapons in invariably preceding a revolution in military affairs has now been shaken, and now tactics come first and weapons follow, or the two encourage one another, with advancement in a push-pull manner becoming the new relationship between them. At the same time, weapons themselves have produced changes with epoch-making significance, and their development no longer looks only to improvements in the performance of individual weapons, but rather to whether or not the weapons have good characteristics for linking and matching them with other weapons. As with the F-111, which was in a class by itself at the time, because it was too advanced, there was no way to pair it up with other weapons, so all they could do was shelve it. That lesson has now been absorbed, and the thinking that tries to rely on one or two new and advanced technology weapons to serve as "killer weapons" which can put an end to the enemy is now outmoded.

"Building the weapons to fit the fight," an approach which has the distinctive features of the age and the characteristics of the laboratory, may not only be viewed as a kind of active choice, it can also be taken as coping with shifting events by sticking to a fundamental principle, and in addition to being a major breakthrough in the history of preparing for war, it also implies the potential crisis in modern warfare: Customizing weapons systems to tactics which are still being explored and studied is like preparing food for a great banquet without knowing who is coming, where the slightest error can lead one far astray. Viewed from the performance of the U.S. military in Somalia, where they were at a loss when they encountered Aidid's forces, the most modern military force does not have the ability to control public clamor, and cannot deal with an opponent who does things in an unconventional manner. On the battlefields of the future, the digitized forces may very possibly be like a great cook who is good at cooking lobsters sprinkled with butter, when faced with guerrillas who resolutely gnaw corncobs, they can only sigh in despair. The "generation gap"[11] in weapons and military forces is perhaps an issue that requires exceptional attention. The closer the generation gap is, the more pronounced are the battle successes of the more senior generation, while the more the gap opens, the less each party is capable of dealing with the other, and it may reach the point where no one can wipe out the other. Looking at the specific examples of battles that we have, it is difficult for high-tech troops to deal with unconventional warfare and low-tech warfare, and perhaps there is a rule here, or at least it is an interesting phenomenon which is worth studying[12].

Weapons of New Concepts and New Concepts of Weapons

Compared to new-concept weapons, nearly all the weapons that we have known so far may be termed old-concept weapons. The reason they are called old is because the basic functions of these weapons were their mobility and lethal power. Even things like precision-guided bombs and other such high-tech weapons really involve nothing more than the addition of the two elements of intelligence and structural capabilities. From the perspective of practical applications, no change in appearance can alter their nature as traditional weapons, that is, their control throughout by professional soldiers and their use on certain battlefields. All these weapons and weapons platforms that have been produced in line with traditional thinking have without exception come to a dead end in their efforts to adapt to modern warfare and future warfare. Those desires of using the magic of high-technology to work some alchemy on traditional weapons so that they are completely remade have ultimately fallen into the high-tech trap involving the endless waste of limited funds and an arms race. This is the paradox that must inevitably be faced in the process of the development of traditional weapons: To ensure that the weapons are in the lead, one must continue to up the ante in development costs; the result of this continued raising of the stakes is that no one has enough money to maintain the lead. Its ultimate result is that the weapons to defend the country actually become a cause of national bankruptcy.

Perhaps the most recent examples are the most convincing. Marshal Orgakov, the former chief of the Soviet general staff, was acutely aware of the trend of weapons development in the "nuclear age," and when, at an opportune time, he proposed the brand-new concept of the "revolution in military technology," his thinking was clearly ahead of those of his generation. But being ahead of time in his thinking hardly brought his country happiness, and actually brought about disastrous results [13]. As soon as this concept -- which against the backdrop of the Cold War was seen by his colleagues as setting the pace for the time -- was proposed, it further intensified the arms race which had been going on for some time between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was just that, at that time no one could predict that it would actually result in the breakup of the Soviet Union and its complete elimination from the superpower contest. A powerful empire collapsed without a single shot being fired, vividly corroborating the lines of the famous poem by Kipling, "When empires perish, it is not with a rumble, but a snicker." Not only was this true for the former Soviet Union, today the Americans seem to be following in the footsteps of their old adversary, providing fresh proof of the paradox of weapons development that we have proposed. As the outlines of the age of technology integration become increasingly clear, they are investing more and more in the development of new weapons, and the cost of the weapons is getting higher and higher. The development of the F-14 and F-15 in the 60s-70s cost one billion dollars, while the development of the B-2 in the 80s cost over $10 billion, and the development of the F-22 in the 90s has exceeded $13 billion. Based on weight, the B-2 [14], which runs $13-$15 billion each, is some three times more expensive than an equivalent weight of gold [15]. Expensive weapons like that abound in the U.S. arsenal, such as the F-117A bomber, the F-22 main combat aircraft, and the Comanche helicopter gunship. The cost of each of these weapons exceeds or approaches $100 million, and this massive amount of weapons with unreasonable cost-effectiveness has covered the U.S. military with increasingly heavy armor, pushing them step by step toward the high-tech weapons trap where the cost stakes continue to be raised. If this is still true for the rich and brash United States, then how far can the other countries, who are short of money, continue down this path? Obviously, it will be difficult for anyone to keep going. Naturally, the way to extricate oneself from this predicament is to develop a different approach.

Therefore, new-concept weapons have emerged to fill the bill. However, what seems unfair to people is that it is again the Americans who are in the lead in this trend. As early as the Vietnam war, the silver iodide powder released over the "Ho Chi Minh trail" that resulted in torrential rains and the defoliants scattered over the subtropical forests put the "American devils" in the sole lead with regard to both the methods and ruthlessness of new-concept weapons. Thirty years later, with the dual advantages of money and technology, others are unable to hold a candle to them in this area.

However, the Americans are not necessarily in the sole lead in everything. The new concepts of weapons, which came after the weapons of new concepts and which cover a wider area, were a natural extension of this. However, the Americans have not been able to get their act together in this area. This is because proposing a new concept of weapons does not require relying on the springboard of new technology, it just demands lucid and incisive thinking. However, this is not a strong point of the Americans, who are slaves to technology in their thinking. The Americans invariably halt their thinking at the boundary where technology has not yet reached. It cannot be denied that man-made earthquakes, tsunamis, weather disasters, or subsonic wave and new biological and chemical weapons all constitute new concept weapons [16], and that they have tremendous differences with what we normally speak of as weapons, but they are still all weapons whose immediate goal is to kill and destroy, and which are still related to military affairs, soldiers, and munitions. Speaking in this sense, they are nothing more than non-traditional weapons whose mechanisms have been altered and whose lethal power and destructive capabilities have been magnified several times over.

However, a new concept of weapons is different. This and what people call new-concept weapons are two entirely different things. While it may be said that new-concept weapons are weapons which transcend the domain of traditional weapons, which can be controlled and manipulated at a technical level, and which are capable of inflicting material or psychological casualties on an enemy, in the face of the new concept of weapons, such weapons are still weapons in a narrow sense. This is because the new concept of weapons is a view of weapons in the broad sense, which views as weapons all means which transcend the military realm but which can still be used in combat operations. In its eyes, everything that can benefit mankind can also harm him. This is to say that there is nothing in the world today that cannot become a weapon, and this requires that our understanding of weapons must have an awareness that breaks through all boundaries. With technological developments being in the process of striving to increase the types of weapons, a breakthrough in our thinking can open up the domain of the weapons kingdom at one stroke. As we see it, a single man-made stock-market crash, a single computer virus invasion, or a single rumor or scandal that results in a fluctuation in the enemy country's exchange rates or exposes the leaders of an enemy country on the Internet, all can be included in the ranks of new-concept weapons. A new concept of weapons provides direction for new-concept weapons, while the new-concept weapons give fixed forms to the new concept of weapons. With regard to the flood of new-concept weapons, technology is no longer the main factor, and the true underlying factor is a new concept regarding weapons.

What must be made clear is that the new concept of weapons is in the process of creating weapons that are closely linked to the lives of the common people. Let us assume that the first thing we say is: The appearance of new-concept weapons will definitely elevate future warfare to a level which is hard for the common people -- or even military men -- to imagine. Then the second thing we have to say should be: The new concept of weapons will cause ordinary people and military men alike to be greatly astonished at the fact that commonplace things that are close to them can also become weapons with which to engage in war. We believe that some morning people will awake to discover with surprise that quite a few gentle and kind things have begun to have offensive and lethal characteristics.

The Trend to "Kinder" Weapons

Before the appearance of the atom bomb, warfare was always in a "shortage age" with respect to lethal power. Efforts to improve weapons have primarily been to boost their lethal power, and from the "light-kill weapons" represented by cold steel weapons and single-shot firearms to the "heavy-kill weapons" represented by various automatic firearms, the history of the development of weapons has almost always been a process of continuing to boost the lethal power of weapons. Prolonged shortages resulted in a thirst among military men for weapons of even greater lethal power that was difficult to satisfy. With a single red cloud that arose over the wasteland of New Mexico in the United States, military men were finally able to obtain a weapon of mass destruction that fulfilled their wishes, as this could not only completely wipe out the enemy, it could kill them 100 or 1000 times over. This gave mankind lethal capabilities that exceeded the demand, and for the first time there was some room to spare with regard to lethal power in war.

Philosophical principles tell us that, whenever something reaches an ultimate point, it will turn in the opposite direction. The invention of nuclear weapons, this "ultra-lethal weapon" [17] which can wipe out all mankind, has plunged mankind into an existential trap of its own making.

Nuclear weapons have become a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of mankind which forces it to ponder: Do we really need "ultra-lethal weapons"? What is the difference between killing an enemy once and killing him 100 times? What is the point of defeating the enemy if it means risking the destruction of the world? How do we avoid warfare that results in ruin for all? A "balance of terror" involving "mutually-assured destruction" was the immediate product of this thinking, but its by-product was to provide a braking mechanism for the runaway express of improving the lethal capabilities of weapons, which was continually picking up speed, so that the development of weapons was no longer careening crazily down the light-kill weapons -- heavy-kill weapons -- ultra-lethal weapons expressway, with people trying to find a new approach to weapons development which would not only be effective but which could also exercise control over the lethal power of the weapons.

Any major technological invention will have a profound human background. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and the more than 50 subsequent pacts related to it have established a set of international rules for human rights in which it is recognized that the use of weapons of mass destruction -- particularly nuclear weapons -- is a serious violation of the "right to life" and represents a "crime against mankind."

Influenced by human rights and other new political concepts, plus the integration trend in international economics, the interlocking demands and political positions involving the interests of various social and political forces, the proposal of the concept of "ultimate concern" for the ecological environment, and particularly the value of human life, have resulted in misgivings about killing and destruction, forming a new value concept for war and new ethics for warfare.

The trend to "kinder" [18] weapons is nothing other than a reflection in the production and development of weapons of this great change in man's cultural background. At the same time, technological progress has given us the means to strike at the enemy's nerve center directly without harming other things, giving us numerous new options for achieving victory, and all these make people believe that the best way to achieve victory is to control, not to kill. There have been changes in the concept of war and the concept of weapons, and the approach of using uncontrolled slaughter to force the enemy into unconditional surrender has now become the relic of a bygone age. Warfare has now taken leave of the meat-grinder age of Verdun-like campaigns.

The appearance of precision-kill (accurate) weapons and non-lethal (non-fatal) weapons is a turning point in the development of weapons, showing for the first time that weapons are developing in a "kinder," not a "stronger" direction. Precision-kill weapons can hit a target precisely, reducing collateral casualties, and like a gamma knife which can excise a tumor with hardly any bleeding, it has led to "surgical" strikes and other such new tactics, so that inconspicuous combat actions can achieve extremely notable strategic results. For example, by merely using one missile to track a mobile telephone signal, the Russians were able to still forever the tough mouth of Dudayev, who was a headache, and at the same time eased the enormous trouble that had been stirred up by tiny Chechnya. Non-lethal weapons can effectively eliminate the combat capabilities of personnel and equipment without loss of life [19]. The trend that is embodied in these weapons shows that mankind is in the process of overcoming its own extreme thinking, beginning to learn to control the lethal power that it already has but which is increasingly excessive. In the massive bombing that lasted more than a month during the Gulf War, the loss of life among civilians in Iraq only numbered in the thousands [20], far less than in the massive bombing of Dresden during World War II. Kinder weapons represent the latest conscious choice of mankind among various options in the weapons arena by which, after the weapons are infused with the element of new technology, the human component is then added, thereby giving warfare an unprecedented kind-hearted hue. However, a kinder weapon is still a weapon, and it does not mean that the demands of being kinder will reduce the battlefield effectiveness of the weapon. To take away a tank's combat capabilities one can use cannons or missiles to destroy it, or a laser beam can be used to destroy its optical equipment or blind its crew. On the battlefield, someone who is injured requires more care than someone who is killed, and unmanned weapons can eliminate increasingly expensive protective facilities. Certainly those developing kinder weapons have already done cold cost-effectiveness calculations of this. Casualties can strip away an enemy's combat capabilities, causing him to panic and lose the will to fight, so this may be considered an extremely worthwhile way to achieve victory. Today, we already have enough technology, and we can create many methods of causing fear which are more effective, such as using a laser beam to project the image of injured followers against the sky, which would be sufficient to frighten those soldiers who are devoutly religious. There are no longer any obstacles to building this kind of weapon, it just requires that some additional imagination be added to the technical element.

Kinder weapons represent a derivative of the new concept of weapons, while information weapons are a prominent example of kinder weapons. Whether it involves electromagnetic energy weapons for hard destruction or soft-strikes by computer logic bombs, network viruses, or media weapons, all are focused on paralyzing and undermining, not personnel casualties.

Kinder weapons, which could only be born in an age of technical integration, may very well be the most promising development trend for weapons, and at the same time they will bring about forms of war or revolutions in military affairs which we cannot imagine or predict today. They represent a change with the most profound implications in the history of human warfare to date, and are the watershed between the old and the new forms of war. This is because their appearance has been sufficient to put all the wars in the age of cold and hot weapons into the "old" era. Nonetheless, we still cannot indulge in romantic fantasies about technology, believing that from this point on war will become a confrontation like an electronic game, and even simulated warfare in a computer room similarly must be premised upon a country's actual overall capabilities, and if a colossus with feet of clay comes up with ten plans for simulated warfare, it will still not be sufficient to deter an enemy who is more powerful with regard to actual strength.

War is still the ground of death and life, the path of survival and destruction, and even the slightest innocence is not tolerated. Even if some day all the weapons have been made completely humane, a kinder war in which bloodshed may be avoided is still war. It may alter the cruel process of war, but there is no way to change the essence of war, which is one of compulsion, and therefore it cannot alter its cruel outcome, either.

Footnotes:

[1] Engels said, "In the age of barbarism, the bow and arrow was still a decisive weapon, the same as the iron sword in an uncivilized age and firearms in the age of civilization." (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, People's Press, 1972, p. 19)

With regard to how stirrups altered the mode of combat, we can refer to the translation and commentary by Gu Zhun [7357 0402] of an article entitled "Stirrups and Feudalism -- Does Technology Create History?" "Stirrups...immediately made hand-to-hand combat possible, and this was a revolutionary new mode of combat...very seldom had there been an invention as simple as the stirrup, but very seldom did it play the kind of catalytic role in history that this did." "Stirrups resulted in a series of military and social revolutions in Europe." (Collected Works of Gu Zhun, Guizhou People's Press, 1994, pp 293-309).

[2] "Compared to the development of any advanced new weapons technology, the invention of the rifle and the conical bullet between 1850-1860 had the most profound and immediate revolutionary impact.....The impact on their age of high-explosive bombs, airplanes, and tanks, which appeared in the 20th century, certainly does not compare to that of the rifle at the time." For details, see T. N. Dupuy's The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare, part 3, section 21, "Rifles, Conical Bullets, and Dispersed Formations." (Military Science Publishing House, 1985, pp 238-250).

[3] In the engagement of the Somme river in World War I, on 1 July 1916 the English forces launched an offensive against the Germans, and the Germans used Maxim machine guns to strafe the English troops, which were in a tight formation, resulting in 60,000 casualties in one day. From that point, mass formation charges gradually began to retreat from the battlefield. (Weapons and War -- The Historical Evolution of Military Technology, Liu Jifeng [0491 2060 6912], University of Science and Technology for National Defense Publishing House, 1992, pp 172-173).

[4] If Wiener's views on war game machines are not taken as the earliest discussion of information weapons. Then, a comment by Tom Luona [as published 5012 6719] in 1976 to the effect that information warfare is a "struggle among decision-making systems" makes him the first to come up with the term "information warfare" (U.S., Military Intelligence magazine, 1997, Jan-Mar issue, Douglas Dearth, "Implications, Characteristics, and Impact of Information Warfare"). Through independent research, in 1990, Shen Weiguang [3088 0251 0342], a young scholar in China who has over ten years of military service, published Information Warfare, which is probably the earliest monograph on information warfare. On the strength of his Third Wave, in another best-seller entitled Power Shift, Toffler gave information warfare a global look, while the Gulf War happened along to become the most splendid advertisement for this new concept of combat. At that point, discussing "information warfare" became fashionable.

[5] Foreign experts hold that "high technology" is not a completely fixed concept and that it is also a dynamic concept, with different countries emphasizing high technology differently. Military high technology mainly includes military microelectronic device technology, computer technology, optoelectric technology, aerospace technology, biotechnology, new materials technology, stealth technology, and directed-energy technology. The most important characteristic of military high technology is "integration," i.e., each military high technology is made up of various technologies to form a technology group. (For details, see "Foreign Military Data," Academy of Military Sciences, Foreign Military Research Dept., No. 69, 1993).

[6] Regarding the definition of "information warfare," to date opinions still vary. The definition by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff is: Actions taken to interfere with the enemy's information, information processing, information systems, and computer networks to achieve information superiority over the enemy, while protecting one's own information, information processing, information systems, and computer networks. According to U.S. Army Field Manual FM100-6, "the DOD's understanding of information warfare leans toward the effects of information in actual conflicts," while the Army's understanding is that "information has already permeated every aspect, from peacetime to military actions in global warfare" (Military Science Publishing House, Chinese translation, pp 24-25). "In a broad sense, information warfare constitutes actions which use information to achieve national goals." That is the definition given to information warfare by George Stein, a professor at the U.S. Air University, reflecting a somewhat broader vision than that of the Army. In an article in the 1997 summer edition of "Joint Force Quarterly," Col. Brian Fredericks proposed that "information warfare is a national issue that goes beyond the scope of national defense," and perhaps this is the most accurate description of information warfare in the broad sense.

[7] Running precisely counter to the situation in which the implications of the concept of "information warfare" are getting broader and broader, some of the smart young officers in the U.S. military are increasingly questioning the concept of "information warfare." Air Force Lt. Col. James Rogers points out that "information warfare really isn't anything new...whether or not those who assert that information warfare techniques and strategies will inevitably replace 'armed warfare' are a bit too self-confident." (U.S. Marines magazine , April, 1997). Navy Lieutenant Robert Guerli [as published 0657 1422 0448] proposed that "the seven areas of misunderstanding with regard to information warfare are: (1) the overuse of analogous methods; (2) exaggerating the threat; (3) overestimating one's own strength; (4) historical relevance and accuracy; (5) avoiding criticism of anomalous attempts; (6) totally unfounded assumptions; and (7) non-standard definitions." (U.S., Events magazine, Sep 97 issue). Air Force Major Yulin Whitehead wrote in the fall 1997 issue of Airpower Journal that information is not all-powerful, and that information weapons are not "magic weapons." Questions about information warfare are definitely not limited to individuals, as the U.S. Air Force document "The Foundations of Information Warfare" makes a strict distinction between "warfare in the information age" and "information warfare." It holds that "warfare in the information age" is warfare which uses computerized weapons, such as using a cruise missile to attack a target, whereas "information warfare" treats information as an independent realm and a powerful weapon. Similarly, some well-known scholars have also issued their own opinions. Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen reminds us that "just as nuclear weapons did not result in the elimination of conventional forces, the information revolution will not eliminate guerilla tactics, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction."

[8] Macromolecular systems designed and produced using biotechnology represent the production materials for even higher order electronic components. For example, protein molecule computers have computation speeds and memory capabilities hundreds of millions of times greater than our current computers. (New Military Perspectives for the Next Century, Military Science Publishing House, 1997 edition, pp 142-145).

[9] Even in the Gulf War, which has been termed a testing ground for the new weapons, there were quite a few old weapons and conventional munitions which played important roles. (For details, see "The Gulf War -- U.S. Department of Defense Final Report to Congress -- Appendix")

[10] Starting with "Air-Land Battle," weapons development by the U.S. military has mainly been divided into five stages: Propose requirements, draft a plan, proof of concept, engineering development and production, and outfitting the units. Development regarding the equipping of digitized units is following this same path. (U.S. Army magazine, Oct 1995). In March, 1997, the U.S. Army conducted a brigade-size high-level combat test, testing a total of 58 kinds of digitized equipment. (U.S. Army Times, 31 March, 7 April, 28 April 1997). According to John E. Wilson, commander of the U.S. Army's Materiel Command, his mission is to cooperate with the Training and Doctrine Command, thinking up and developing bold and novel advanced technology equipment for them which meets their needs. (U.S. Army magazine, October 1997).

[11] Slipchenko [si li pu qin ke 2448 0448 2528 3830 4430], chairman of the Dept. of Scientific Research at the Russian General Staff Academy, believes that war and weapons have already gone through five ages, and we are now heading toward the sixth. (Zhu Xiaoli, Zhao Xiaozhuo, The New U.S. and Russian Military Revolution, Military Science Publishing House, 1996 edition, p 6).

[12] The Journal of the National Defense University, No. 11, 1998, carried an article on Chen Bojiang's interview of Philip Odeen, chairman of the U.S. National Defense Panel. Odeen mentioned "asymmetrical warfare" several times, believing that this is a new threat to the United States. Antulio Echevarria published an article in Parameters magazine in which he proposed that "in the post-industrial age, the thing that will still be most difficult to deal with will be a 'people's war.'"

[13] U.S. defense specialists believe that Orgakov already saw that electronic technology would result in a revolution in conventional weapons, and that they would replace nuclear weapons with respect to their effects. However, Orgakov's foresight and wisdom with regard to the issue of a revolution in military affairs ran aground because of structural problems. "If, in keeping up with the extremely high costs of the revolution in military affairs, a country exceeds the limits that can be borne by its system and material conditions, but it keeps engaging in military power contests with its opponents, the only outcome can be that they will fall further behind with regard to the military forces that they can use. This was the fate of Russia during the czarist and Soviet eras: the Soviet Union undertook military burdens that were difficult to bear, while in turn the military was unwilling to accept the need for strategic retrenchment." (See U.S., Strategic Review magazine, spring 1996, Steven Blank, "Preparing for the Next War: Some Views on the Revolution in Military Affairs").

[14] In 1981, the U.S. Air Force estimated that it could produce 132 B-2s with an investment of $22 billion. However, eight years later, this money had only produced one B-2. Based on its value per unit weight, one B-2 is worth three times its weight in gold. (See Modern Military, No. 8, 1998, p 33, and Zhu Zhihao's Analysis of U.S. Stealth Technology Policy.)

[15] The U.S. Dept. of Defense conducted an analysis of the 13 January 1993 air attack on Iraq and believes that there are numerous limitations to high-tech weapons, and that the effect of the combined effect bombs was at times better than that of precision bombs. (U.S., Aviation Week and Space Technology, 25 January 93).

[16] New-concept weapons primarily include kinetic-energy weapons, directed-energy weapons, subsonic weapons, geophysical weapons, meteorological weapons, solar energy weapons, and gene weapons, etc. (New Military Perspectives for the Next Century, Military Science Publishing House, 1997 edition, p 3).

[17] The point in substituting the concept of "ultra-lethal weapons" for the concept of "weapons of mass destruction" is to stress that the lethal power of such weapons exceeds the needs of warfare and represents a product of man's extremist thinking.

[18] The "kind" in "kinder weapons" mainly refers to the fact that it reduces slaughter and collateral casualties.

[19] The April 1993 issue of the British journal International Defense Review revealed that the United States was energetically researching a variety of non-lethal weapons, including optical weapons, high-energy microwave weapons, acoustic beam weapons, and pulsed chemical lasers. The 6 March 1993 issue of Jane's Defense Weekly reported that a high-level non-lethal weapons steering committee at the Dept. of Defense had formulated a policy regulating the development, procurement, and use of such weapons. In addition, according to the 1997 World Military Yearbook (pp 521-522), the U.S. Dept. of Defense has established a "non-lethal weapons research leading group," whose goal is to see that non-lethal weapons appear on the weapons inventory as soon as possible.

[20] See Military Science Publishing House Foreign Military Data, 26 March 1993, No. 27, p 3.

[pp. 34-59 in original]

"Throughout the Entire Course of History, Warfare is Always Changing." --Andre Beaufre

Ever since early man went from hunting animals to slaughtering his own kind, people have been equipping the giant war beast for action, and the desire to attain various goals has prompted soldiers to become locked in bloody conflict. It has become universally accepted that warfare is a matter for soldiers. For several thousand years, the three indispensable "hardware" elements of any war have been soldiers, weapons and a battlefield. Running through them all has been the "software" element of warfare: its purposefulness. Before now, nobody has ever questioned that these are the basic elements of warfare. The problem comes when people discover that all of these basic elements, which seemingly were hard and fast, have changed so that it is impossible to get a firm grip on them. When that day comes, is the war god's face still distinct?

Why Fight and for Whom?

In regard to the ancient Greeks, if the account in Homer's epic is really trustworthy, the purpose of the Trojan War was clear and simple: it was worth fighting a ten-year war for the beautiful Helen. As far as their aims, the wars prosecuted by our ancestors were relatively simple in terms of the goals to be achieved, with no complexity to speak of. This was because our ancestors had limited horizons, their spheres of activity were narrow, they had modest requirements for existence, and their weapons were not lethal enough. Only if something could not be obtained by normal means would our ancestors generally resort to extraordinary measures to obtain it, and then without the least hesitation. Just so, Clausewitz wrote his famous saying, which has been an article of faith for several generations of soldiers and statesmen: "War is a continuation of politics." Our ancestors would fight perhaps for the orthodox status of a religious sect, or perhaps for an expanse of pastureland with plenty of water and lush grass. They would not even have scruples about going to war over, say, spices, liquor or a love affair between a king and queen. The stories of wars over spices and sweethearts, and rebellions over things like rum, are recorded in the pages of history--stories that leave us not knowing whether to laugh or cry. Then there is the war that the English launched against the Qing monarchy for the sake of the opium trade. This was national drug trafficking activity on probably the grandest scale in recorded history. It is clear from these examples that, prior to recent times, there was just one kind of warfare in terms of the kind of motive and the kind of subsequent actions taken. Moving to later times, Hitler expounded his slogan of "obtaining living space for the German people," and the Japanese expounded their slogan of building the so called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." While a cursory look at these slogans would suggest that the goals must have been somewhat more complex than the goals of any previous wars, nevertheless the substance behind the slogans was simply that the new great powers intended to once again carve up the spheres of influence of the old great powers and to reap the benefits of seizing their colonies.

To assess why people fight is not so easy today, however. In former times, the ideal of "exporting revolution" and the slogan of "checking the expansion of communism" were calls to action that elicited countless responses. But especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain running all along the divide between the two great camps suddenly collapsed, these calls have lost their effectiveness. The times of clearly drawn sides are over.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? These used to be the paramount questions in regard to revolution and counterrevolution. Suddenly the answers have become complicated, confusing and hard to get hold of. A country that yesterday was an adversary is in the process of becoming a current partner today, while a country that once was an ally will perhaps be met on the battlefield at the next outbreak of war. Iraq, which one year was still fiercely attacking Iran on behalf of the U.S. in the Iran-Iraq War, itself became the target of a fierce attack by the U.S. military in the next year (see Endnote 1). An Afghan guerilla trained by the CIA becomes the latest target for an attack by U.S. cruise missiles overnight. Furthermore, NATO members Greece and Turkey have nearly come to blows several times in their dispute over Cyprus, and Japan and South Korea, who have concluded a treaty of alliance, have come just short of an open break as a result of their dispute over a tiny island. All of this serves to again confirm that old saying: "all friendship is in flux; self-interest is the only constant." The kaleidoscope of war is turned by the hands of self-interest, presenting constantly shifting images to the observer.

Astonishing advances in modern advanced technology serve to promote globalization, further intensifying the uncertainty associated with the dissolution of some perceived self-interests and the emergence of others. The reason for starting a war can be anything from a dispute over territory and resources, a dispute over religious beliefs, hatred stemming from tribal differences, or a dispute over ideology, to a dispute over market share, a dispute over the distribution of power and authority, a dispute over trade sanctions, or a dispute stemming from financial unrest.

The goals of warfare have become blurred due to the pursuit of a variety of agendas. Thus, it is more and more difficult for people to say clearly just why they are fighting (see Endnote 2). Every young lad that participated in the Gulf War will tell you right up front that he fought to restore justice in tiny, weak Kuwait. However, the real reason for the war was perhaps far different from the high-sounding reason that was given. Hiding under the umbrella furnished by this high-sounding reason, they need not fear facing the light directly. In reality, every country that participated in the Gulf War decided to join "Desert Storm" only after carefully thinking over its own intentions and goals. Throughout the whole course of the war, all of the Western powers were fighting for their oil lifeline. To this primary goal, the Americans added the aspiration of building a new world order with "USA" stamped on it. Perhaps there was also a bit of missionary zeal to uphold justice. In order to eliminate a threat that was close at hand, the Saudi Arabians were willing to smash Muslim taboos and "dance with wolves." From start to finish, the British reacted enthusiastically to President Bush's every move, in order to repay Uncle Sam for the trouble he took on their behalf in the Malvinas Islands War. The French, in order to prevent the complete evaporation of their traditional influence in the Middle East, finally sent troops to the Gulf at the last moment. Naturally, there is no way that a war prosecuted under these kinds of conditions can be a contest fought over a single objective. The aggregate of the self-interests of all the numerous countries participating in the war serves to transform a modern war like "Desert Storm" into a race to further various self-interests under the banner of a common interest. Thus, so-called "common interest" has become merely the war equation's largest common denominator that can be accepted by every allied party participating in the war effort. Since different countries will certainly be pursuing different agendas in a war, it is necessary to take the self-interest of every allied party into consideration if the war is to be prosecuted jointly. Even if we consider a given country's domestic situation, each of the various domestic interest groups will also be pursuing its own agenda in a war. The complex interrelationships among self-interests make it impossible to pigeonhole the Gulf War as having been fought for oil, or as having been fought for the new world order, or as having been fought to drive out the invaders. Only a handful of soldiers are likely to grasp a principle that every statesman already knows: that the biggest difference between contemporary wars and the wars of the past is that, in contemporary wars, the overt goal and the covert goal are often two different matters.

Where to Fight?

"To the battlefield!" The young lad with a pack on his back takes leave of his family as his daughters and other relatives see him off with tears in their eyes. This is a classic scene in war movies. Whether the young lad is leaving on a horse, a train, a steamship or a plane is not so important. The important thing is that the destination never changes: it is the battlefield bathed in the flames of war.

During the long period of time before firearms, battlefields were small and compact. A face-off at close quarters between two armies might unfold on a small expanse of level ground, in a mountain pass, or within the confines of a city. In the eyes of today's soldier, the battlefield that so enraptured the ancients is a "point" target on the military map that is not particularly noteworthy. Such a battlefield is fundamentally incapable of accommodating the spectacle of war as it has unfolded in recent times on such a grand scale. The advent of firearms led to dispersed formations, and the "point" ["dian" 7820] type battlefield was gradually drawn out into a line of skirmishers. The trench warfare of the First World War, with lines extending hundreds of miles, served to bring the "point" and "line" ["xian" 4775] type battlefield to its acme. At the same time, it transformed the battlefield into an "area" ["mian" 7240] type battlefield which was several dozens of miles deep. For those who went to war during those times, the new battlefield meant trenches, pillboxes, wire entanglements, machine guns and shell craters. They called war on this type of battlefield, where heavy casualties were inflicted, a "slaughterhouse" and a "meat grinder." The explosive development of military technology is constantly setting the stage for further explosive expansion of the battlespace. The transition from the "point" type battlefield to the "line" type battlefield, and the transition from the two-dimensional battlefield to the three- dimensional battlefield did not take as long as people generally think. One could say that, in each case, the latter stage came virtually on the heels of the former. When tanks began roaring over military trenches, prop airplanes were already equipped with machine guns and it was already possible to drop bombs from zeppelins. The development of weapons cannot, in and of itself, automatically usher in changes in the nature of the battlefield. In the history of warfare, any significant advance has always depended in part on active innovating by military strategists. The battlefield, which had been earthbound for several thousand years, was suddenly lifted into three dimensional space. This was due in part to General J.F.C. Fuller's Tanks in the Great War of 1914-1918 and Giulio Douhet's The Command of the Air, as well as the extremely deep operations that were proposed and demonstrated under the command of Marshall Mikhail N. Tukhachevsky. Erich Ludendorff was another individual who attempted to radically change the nature of the battlefield. He put forth the theory of "total war" and tried to combine battlefield and non-battlefield elements into one organic whole. While he was not successful, he nevertheless was the harbinger of similar military thought that has outlived him for more than half a century. Ludendorff was destined only to fight at battlefields like Verdun and the Masurian Lakes. A soldier's fate is determined by the era in which he lives. At that time, the wingspan of the war god could not extend any farther than the range of a Krupp artillery piece. Naturally, then, it was impossible to fire a shell that would pass through the front and rear areas on its parabolic path. Hitler was more fortunate than Ludendorff. 20 years later, he had long range weapons at his disposal. He utilized bombers powered by Mercedes engines and V-1 and V-2 guided missiles and broke the British Isles' record of never having been encroached upon by an invader. Hitler, who was neither a strategist nor a tactician, relied on his intuition and made the line of demarcation between the front and rear less prominent in the war, but he never really understood the revolutionary significance of breaking through the partition separating battlefield elements from non-battlefield elements. Perhaps this concept was beyond the ken of an out-and- out war maniac and half-baked military strategist.

This revolution, however, will be upon us in full force soon enough. This time, technology is again running ahead of the military thinking. While no military thinker has yet put forth an extremely wide-ranging concept of the battlefield, technology is doing its utmost to extend the contemporary battlefield to a degree that is virtually infinite: there are satellites in space, there are submarines under the water, there are ballistic missiles that can reach anyplace on the globe, and electronic countermeasures are even now being carried out in the invisible electromagnetic spectrum space. Even the last refuge of the human race--the inner world of the heart--cannot avoid the attacks of psychological warfare. There are nets above and snares below, so that a person has no place to flee. All of the prevailing concepts about the breadth, depth and height of the operational space already appear to be old-fashioned and obsolete. In the wake of the expansion of mankind's imaginative powers and his ability to master technology, the battlespace is being stretched to its limits.

In 1985, China implemented a "Massive Million Troop Drawdown" in its armed forces. With this as a prelude, every major nation in the world carried out round after round of force reductions over the next dozen or so years. According to many commentators on military affairs, the main factor behind the general worldwide force reductions is that, with the conclusion of the Cold War, countries that formerly were pitted against each other are now anxious to enjoy the peace dividend. Little do these commentators realize that this factor is just the tip of the iceberg.

The factors leading to armed forces reductions are by no means limited to this point. A deeper reason for the force reductions is that, as the wave of information technology (IT) warfare ["xinxihua zhanzheng" 0207 1873 0553 2069 3630] grows and grows, it would require too much of an effort and would be too grandiose to set up a large-scale professional military, cast and formed on the assembly lines of big industry and established according to the demands of mechanized warfare. Precisely for this reason, during these force reductions, some farsighted countries, rather than primarily having personnel cuts in mind, are instead putting more emphasis on raising the quality of military personnel, increasing the amount of high technology and mid- level technology in weaponry, and updating military thought and warfighting theory [see Endnote 4]. The era of "strong and brave soldiers who are heroic defenders of the nation" has already passed. In a world where even "nuclear warfare" will perhaps become obsolete military jargon, it is likely that a pasty-faced scholar wearing thick eyeglasses is better suited to be a modern soldier than is a strong young lowbrow with bulging biceps. The best evidence of this is perhaps a story that is circulating in Western military circles regarding a lieutenant who used a modem to bring a naval division to its knees [see Endnote 5]. The contrast between today's soldiers and the soldiers of earlier generations is as plain to see as the contrast which we have already noted between modern weapons and their precursors. This is because modern soldiers have gone through the severe test of an uninterrupted technological explosion throughout the entire 100 years of the twentieth century, and perhaps also because of the salutary influence of the worldwide pop culture; viz., rock and roll, discos, the World Cup, the NBA and Hollywood, etc., etc. The contrast is stark whether we are talking about physical ability or intellectual ability.

Even though the new generation of soldiers born in the 70's and 80's has been trained using the "beast barracks" style of training, popularized by West Point Military Academy, it is difficult for them to shed their gentle and frail natures rooted in the soil of contemporary society. In addition, modern weapons systems have made it possible for them to be far removed from any conventional battlefield, and they can attack the enemy from a place beyond his range of vision where they need not come face to face with the dripping blood that comes with killing. All of this has turned each and every soldier into a self-effacing gentleman who would just as soon avoid the sight of blood. The digital fighter is taking over the role formerly played by the "blood and iron" warrior--a role that, for thousands of years, has not been challenged.

Now that it has come on the stage of action and has rendered obsolete the traditional divisions of labor prevailing in a society characterized by big industry, warfare no longer is an exclusive imperial garden where professional soldiers alone can mingle. A tendency towards civilianization has begun to become evident [see Endnote 6]. Mao Zedong's theory concerning "every citizen a soldier" has certainly not been in any way responsible for this tendency. The current trend does not demand extensive mobilization of the people. Quite the contrary, it merely indicates that a technological elite among the citizenry have broken down the door and barged in uninvited, making it impossible for professional soldiers with their concepts of professionalized warfare to ignore challenges that are somewhat embarrassing. Who is most likely to become the leading protagonist on the terra incognita of the next war? The first challenger to have appeared, and the most famous, is the computer "hacker." This chap, who generally has not received any military training or been engaged in any military profession, can easily impair the security of an army or a nation in a major way by simply relying on his personal technical expertise.

A classic example is given in the U.S. FM100-6 Information Operations regulations. In 1994, a computer hacker in England attacked the U.S. military's Rome Air Development Center in New York State, compromising the security of 30 systems. He also hacked into more than 100 other systems. The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) and NASA suffered damage, among others. What astounded people was not only the scale of those affected by the attack and the magnitude of the damage, but also the fact that the hacker was actually a teenager who was merely 16 years old. Naturally, an intrusion by a teenager playing a game cannot be regarded as an act of war. The problem is, how does one know for certain which damage is the result of games and which damage is the result of warfare? Which acts are individual acts by citizens and which acts represent hostile actions by non-professional warriors, or perhaps even organized hacker warfare launched by a state? In 1994, there were 230,000 security-related intrusions into U.S. DOD networks. How many of these were organized destructive acts by non-professional warriors? Perhaps there will never be any way of knowing [see Endnote 7].

Just as there are all kinds of people in society, so hackers come in all shapes and colors. All types of hackers, with varying backgrounds and values, are hiding in the camouflage provided by networks: curious middle school students; on-line gold diggers; corporate staff members nursing a grudge; dyed-in-the-wool network terrorists; and network mercenaries. In their ideas and in their actions, these kinds of people are poles apart from each other, but they gather together in the same network world. They go about their business in accordance with their own distinctive value judgments and their own ideas of what makes sense, while some are simply confused and aimless. For these reasons, whether they are doing good or doing ill, they do not feel bound by the rules of the game that prevail in the society at large. Using computers, they may obtain information by hook or by crook from other people's accounts. They may delete someone else's precious data, that was obtained with such difficulty, as a practical joke. Or, like the legendary lone knight-errant, they may use their outstanding on-line technical skills to take on the evil powers that be. The Suharto government imposed a strict blockade on news about the organized aggressive actions against the ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia. The aggressive actions were first made public on the Internet by witnesses with a sense of justice. As a result, the whole world was utterly shocked and the Indonesian government and military were pushed before the bar of morality and justice. Prior to this, another group of hackers calling themselves "Milworm" put on another fine performance on the Internet. In order to protest India's nuclear tests, they penetrated the firewall of the network belonging to India's [Bhabha] Atomic Research Center (BARC), altered the home page, and downloaded 5 MB of data. These hackers could actually be considered polite. They went only to a certain point and no further, and did not give their adversary too much trouble. Aside from the direct results of this kind of action, it also has a great deal of symbolic significance: in the information age, the influence exerted by a nuclear bomb is perhaps less than the influence exerted by a hacker.

More murderous than hackers--and more of a threat in the real world--are the non-state organizations, whose very mention causes the Western world to shake in its boots. These organizations, which all have a certain military flavor to a greater or lesser degree, are generally driven by some extreme creed or cause, such as: the Islamic organizations pursuing a holy war; the Caucasian militias in the U.S.; the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult; and, most recently, terrorist groups like Osama bin Ladin's, which blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The various and sundry monstrous and virtually insane destructive acts by these kinds of groups are undoubtedly more likely to be the new breeding ground for contemporary wars than is the behavior of the lone ranger hacker. Moreover, when a nation state or national armed force, (which adheres to certain rules and will only use limited force to obtain a limited goal), faces off with one of these types of organizations, (which never observe any rules and which are not afraid to fight an unlimited war using unlimited means), it will often prove very difficult for the nation state or national armed force to gain the upper hand.

During the 1990's, and concurrent with the series of military actions launched by non-professional warriors and non-state organizations, we began to get an inkling of a non-military type of war which is prosecuted by yet another type of non-professional warrior. This person is not a hacker in the general sense of the term, and also is not a member of a quasi-military organization. Perhaps he or she is a systems analyst or a software engineer, or a financier with a large amount of mobile capital or a stock speculator. He or she might even perhaps be a media mogul who controls a wide variety of media, a famous columnist or the host of a TV program. His or her philosophy of life is different from that of certain blind and inhuman terrorists. Frequently, he or she has a firmly held philosophy of life and his or her faith is by no means inferior to Osama bin Ladin's in terms of its fanaticism. Moreover, he or she does not lack the motivation or courage to enter a fight as necessary. Judging by this kind of standard, who can say that George Soros is not a financial terrorist?

Precisely in the same way that modern technology is changing weapons and the battlefield, it is also at the same time blurring the concept of who the war participants are. From now on, soldiers no longer have a monopoly on war.

Global terrorist activity is one of the by-products of the globalization trend that has been ushered in by technological integration. Non-professional warriors and non-state organizations are posing a greater and greater threat to sovereign nations, making these warriors and organizations more and more serious adversaries for every professional army. Compared to these adversaries, professional armies are like gigantic dinosaurs which lack strength commensurate to their size in this new age. Their adversaries, then, are rodents with great powers of survival, which can use their sharp teeth to torment the better part of the world.

What Means and Methods Are Used to Fight?

There's no getting around the opinions of the Americans when it comes to discussing what means and methods will be used to fight future wars. This is not simply because the U.S. is the latest lord of the mountain in the world. It is more because the opinions of the Americans on this question really are superior compared to the prevailing opinions among the military people of other nations. The Americans have summed up the four main forms that warfighting will take in the future as: 1) Information warfare; 2) Precision warfare [see Endnote 8]; 3) Joint operations [see Endnote 9]; and 4) Military operations other than war (MOOTW) [see Endnote 10]. This last sentence is a mouthful. From this sentence alone we can see the highly imaginative, and yet highly practical, approach of the Americans, and we can also gain a sound understanding of the warfare of the future as seen through the eyes of the Americans. Aside from joint operations, which evolved from traditional cooperative operations and coordinated operations, and even Air- Land operations, the other three 