Chapter 2 The first chapter is always the weapon revolution that comes first

As soon as technological advances become available for military purposes and have been used for military purposes, they immediately and almost forcibly, and often against the will of the commander, bring about a change or even revolution in the way of fighting. - Engels The weapon revolution is always one step ahead of the military revolution. When the revolutionary weapons arrive, the military revolution will come sooner or later.The history of war continues to provide such proof: bronze or iron spears created infantry phalanxes, bows and stirrups provided cavalry with new tactics[1], and guns using black powder gave birth to a whole set of modern warfare. From the time when the cone bullet and the rifle [2] entered the battlefield as the vanguard of the technological age, the weapon simply put its name on the chest of war.First, the giant steel-clad ship acted as the overlord of the sea, opening the "Battleship Era", then its brother "tank" became famous for land warfare, and then the aircraft ruled the sky, until the birth of the atomic bomb, heralding the advent of the "Nuclear Age".Today, a large number of high-tech weapons continue to emerge, making weapons the chief representative of war.When people talk about future warfare, they are already used to calling it a certain weapon or a certain technology, calling it "electronic warfare", "precision weapon warfare", or "information warfare".In the inertial slide of the thinking track, people have not yet noticed that some inconspicuous but important changes are coming quietly.

[1] Engels said, "The bow and arrow are to the age of savagery, just as the iron sword is to the age of barbarism and firearms are to the age of civilization, they are the decisive weapons." ) Regarding the role of stirrups in changing the way of fighting, you can refer to Gu Zhun's article ""Stirrups and Feudalism-Does Technology Make History?" Translation and Commentary", "The stirrup...it immediately made hand-to-hand combat possible, and this is a A revolutionary new way of fighting... Few inventions have been as simple as the stirrup, but few have historically been as catalytic." "The stirrup led to a series of military-social reforms in Western Europe". ("Gu Zhun Collected Works", Guizhou People's Publishing House, 1994, P293-309)

[2] "The invention of the rifle and the conical bullet between 1850 and 1860 had the most profound and immediately revolutionary impact of any advanced new weapon technology development. . . . Tanks certainly have had less of an impact on modern times than rifles did."See T. N. Dupuy's "The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare", Part III, Section 21 "Rifles, Conical Bullets, and Scattered Formation." (Military Science Press, 1985, 1938-250) no one has the right to name a war The arms revolution is the prelude to the military revolution.Unlike in the past, the coming military revolution will no longer be driven by one or two single weapons.A large number of technological inventions, while constantly stimulating people's fascination for new weapons, also quickly dispelled the magic of each weapon.In the past, only the invention of a few weapons or equipment, such as the stirrup and the Maxim machine gun[3], was enough to cause changes in the style of warfare. Now, hundreds of weapons are required to form several weapon systems to affect warfare as a whole.However, the more weapons are invented, the smaller the role of a single weapon in war is, which is the paradox implicit in the relationship between weapons and war.In this sense, except for the increasingly unlikely scenario of full-scale use of nuclear weapons that can be called nuclear war, no other weapon, even the most revolutionary, has any potential for future wars. Naming rights.

[3] During the Battle of the Somme in World War I, on July 1, 1916, the British army launched an attack on the German army. The German army fired Maxim machine guns at the densely formed British army, causing 60,000 British casualties a day. people.Since then, the charge in dense formation gradually withdrew from the battlefield. ("Weapons and War-Historical Evolution of Military Technology" by Liu Jifeng, National University of Defense Technology Press, 1992, P172-173) Perhaps it is precisely because people realize this that the terms "high-tech warfare" and "information warfare" [4] are intended to replace the specific concept of weapons with a broad concept of technology, and use fuzzy methods to solve this problem. road problem.But this still doesn't seem to be the solution to the problem.

[4] If Wiener's views on the war game machine are not regarded as the earliest discussion of information weapons.Well, Tom Rohner's 1976 statement that information warfare "is a struggle between decision-making systems" made him the earliest proposer of the term "information warfare" (U.S. "Military Intelligence" magazine Douglas Diels, "Connotation, Characteristics and Impact of Information Warfare", January-March 1997).Shen Weiguang, a young Chinese scholar who had served in the military for more than ten years, published "Information Warfare" in 1990 through independent research. This is probably the earliest monograph on information warfare.Taking advantage of the momentum of the "third wave", Toffler promoted the concept of "information warfare" to the world in his other best-selling book "Transition of Power", and the Gulf War just became the foundation of this new concept of warfare. Best ad ever.Thus, talking about "information warfare" has become a fashion.

After careful study, the term "high technology" [5], which first appeared in the American construction industry, is really a bit vague.What is high technology?What is it for?Logically speaking, high and low are only relative concepts.However, using a highly variable concept to name wars in an ever-changing manner is very problematic in itself.When a generation of so-called high-tech becomes low-tech over time, are we ready to rename the new gadget that comes next as high-tech again?And will this bring confusion and trouble to us in today's technological explosion, calling and using every new technology that emerges?What's more, whether it is high technology, what should be the standard?As far as the technology itself is concerned, each technology is specific and therefore has its time limit.Yesterday's "high" is likely to be today's "low", and today's "new" will become tomorrow's "old".Compared with M-60 tanks, "Cobra" helicopters and B-52, the main battle weapons of the 1960s and 1970s, "Abrams" tanks, "Apache" gunships, F-117 and "Patriot" Missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles are high technology; they are looking like a thing of the past in the face of B-2s, F-22s, Comanche helicopters, and the JESTA Joint Surveillance Target Attack System.In this way, the concept of high-tech weapons, which has always been a variable, has become the title of "bridal wife". As "the flowers bloom every year and the people are different", only the title like an empty shell is left, which is constantly worn in the world. On the heads of the women who are becoming "bride brides".Then, in the continuous chain of wars, every weapon changes from high to low, from new to old, and the arrow of time refuses to stay at any point, so there is no weapon that can Since it has been on the throne of high technology for a long time, what kind of high technology does the so-called high-tech war refer to?

[5] Foreign experts believe that "high technology" is not a fully fixed concept, but also a dynamic concept, and different countries have different emphases on high technology.Military high technology mainly includes military microelectronic device technology, computer technology, optoelectronic technology, aerospace technology, biotechnology, new material technology, stealth technology, and directed energy technology.The main feature of military high-tech is "comprehensiveness", that is, all military high-tech is composed of multiple technologies and is a technology group. (For details, see "Foreign Military Materials", Issue 69, 1993, of the Foreign Military Research Department of the Academy of Military Sciences)

Broadly speaking, high technology cannot be synonymous with future warfare, and information technology, which is one of the contemporary high technologies and plays an important role in the composition of almost all modern weapons, is not enough to name a war.Even if all weapons in a future war are embedded with information components and are fully informatized, we still cannot call this kind of war an information war, at best it can only be called an information war[6].Because no matter how important information technology is, it cannot completely replace the functions and functions of each technology itself.For example, the F-22 fighter jet that has been fully informationized is still a fighter jet, and the "Tomahawk" missile is still a missile. They cannot be called information weapons in general, and wars waged with these weapons cannot be called information warfare. 7].Information warfare in the broad sense and information warfare in the narrow sense are completely different things.The former refers to various forms of warfare that are strengthened and accompanied by information technology; the latter mainly refers to operations that use information technology as a means to obtain or suppress information.In addition, the contemporary myth created by the cult of information has led people to believe that it is the only rising technology and that everything else has faded away.This kind of myth can bring more money to Bill Gates' pocket, but it cannot change the fact that the development of information technology also depends on the development of other technologies, and the development of related material technologies directly restricts the breakthrough of information technology , such as the progress of biotechnology determines the future fate of information technology [8].When it comes to bioinformatics, we might as well go back to the previous topic and make a small assumption: If someone uses an information-guided biological weapon to attack a biological computer, should it be considered biological warfare or information warfare?I'm afraid no one can answer it in one sentence, but it is entirely possible.In fact, people don't have to worry about whether information technology can be big today, because it itself is a product of technological synthesis. Its first appearance and every progress is a combination of other technologies. My fusion process, which is the most essential feature of the technological synthesis-globalization era.This feature, of course, also leaves its typical imprint on every modern weapon, like the stencil number.We do not deny that some advanced weapons will still play a leading role on the future battlefield, but it is difficult for anyone to occupy a unique position in determining the outcome of a war.It may be dominant, but it is not the only one, nor will it be constant for a long time.In other words, no one can brazenly put his name in front of a certain modern war.

[6] There are still different opinions on the definition of "information warfare".The definition given by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff is--while protecting one's own information, information processing, information systems and computer networks, to interfere with the enemy's information, information processing, information systems and computer networks to gain the enemy's actions based on information superiority.The U.S. Army FM100-6 field doctrine believes that "the Department of Defense's understanding of information warfare focuses on the impact of information in actual conflicts", while the Army's understanding is that "information has penetrated into all aspects of military operations from peacetime to global war." Aspects" (Military Science Press, Chinese translation, P24-25). "Information warfare in a broad sense is the use of information to achieve national goals." The definition of information warfare given by George Stein, a professor at the US Air Force University, appears to be more ambitious than that of the Army.Colonel Brian Fredericks' article in the Summer 1997 issue of the Joint Forces Quarterly, "Information Warfare Is a National Problem Beyond the Department of Defense," perhaps reflects the breadth of information warfare the most accurate expression of .

[7] The connotation of the concept of "information warfare" is expanding. On the contrary, some thoughtful young officers in the US military have put forward more and more irony about the concept of "information warfare".Air Force Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers pointed out, "Information warfare is not new... Are those who assert that information warfare technology and tactics will inevitably replace weapons warfare a little too confident." (US "Marine Corps" magazine, April 1997 ) Lieutenant Commander Robert Gurley put forward "seven misunderstandings in information warfare: (1) misusing metaphors; (2) exaggerating threats; (3) overestimating their own strength; (4) historical relevance and accuracy; (5) abnormal attempts to avoid criticism; (6) unfounded assumptions; (7) non-standard definitions." (US "Chronicle" Magazine, September 1997 issue) Air Force Major Yulin Whitehead in " An article in the Autumn 1997 issue of Air Power Magazine pointed out that information is not omnipotent, and information weapons are not "magic weapons".Questions about information warfare are not limited to individuals. The U.S. Air Force’s document "Basics of Information Warfare" makes a strict distinction between "war in the information age" and "information warfare", and believes that "war in the information age" is based on the use of information-based weapons. War, such as using cruise missiles to attack targets; and "information warfare" is to use information as an independent domain and a powerful weapon.Similarly, some famous scholars also expressed their opinions.Johns Hopkins University professor Elliot Cohen cautioned that "just as nuclear weapons did not eliminate conventional power, the information revolution will not eliminate guerrilla tactics, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction."

[8] Macromolecular systems designed and produced by biotechnology are more advanced materials for the production of electronic components, such as protein molecular computers, which are hundreds of millions of times faster than existing computers in terms of computing speed and storage capacity. ("Cross-Century Military New Viewpoint", Military Science Press, 1997 Edition, P142-145) What kind of weapons do you have, what kind of battles you fight and what kind of weapons you fight "War with what weapon you have" and "Build what weapon with what kind of battle you fight", these two sentences point out the obvious difference between traditional warfare and future warfare, and also point out the relationship between weapons and tactics in the two types of warfare.The former reflects the unconscious or passive adaptation to the relationship between weapons and tactics by human beings engaged in warfare in a state of nature, while the latter indicates people's conscious or active choice of the same proposition when entering a free state.Since the history of war, an unwritten general rule that people have followed is "fight with the weapons you have".Often after having a weapon first, the tactics that match it begin to form.Weapons come first, tactics follow, and the evolution of weapons plays a decisive role in restricting the evolution of tactics.Although there are limiting factors of the times and technology here, it cannot be said that it has nothing to do with the linear thinking of each generation of weapons manufacturing experts who only consider whether the performance of the weapon itself is advanced, regardless of other linear thinking.Perhaps this is one reason why revolutions in weapons always precede revolutions in military affairs. Although the phrase "fight with any weapon" is negative in nature, because its subtext reflects a kind of helplessness, we have no intention of belittling its positive significance today, which is It is to find the best tactics based on existing weapons.In other words, it is trying to find the combat method that best matches the given weapon, so as to maximize its performance.Today, people engaged in war have completed the transition of this law from negative to positive, consciously or unconsciously.It's just that people still misunderstand that this is the only initiative that backward countries can take in desperation.Little do they know that the United States, the world's number one power, also needs to face this kind of helplessness. Even if it is rich in the world, it may not be able to fight an expensive modern war with all high-tech weapons[9].It's just that she has more freedom in choosing and matching new and old weapons. [9] Even in the Gulf War, which is known as a testing ground for new weapons, many old weapons and ordinary ammunition played an important role. (For details, see "Gulf War--Appendix to the Final Report of the US Department of Defense to Congress") If a good fit can be found, that is, the most appropriate and suitable tactics can be found, and the combination of new and old weapons of different generations can not only eliminate the vulnerability of single weapons, but may also become a "multiplier" of weapon effectiveness.The B-52 bomber, which has been predicted many times to be dead long ago, has reappeared after being combined with cruise missiles and other precision-guided weapons, and has not yet rested its wings; the A-10 aircraft uses external infrared missiles, It has the ability to attack at night that it did not have originally, and its cooperation with Apache helicopters complements each other, making this weapon platform that appeared in the mid-1970s even more powerful.It can be seen that "fighting with what weapons you have" is not passive and inactive.Today's increasingly open weapons market and diverse weapon supply channels provide great room for weapon selection. The coexistence of a large number of multi-generation weapons provides a wider and more comprehensive combination of weapons than ever before. As long as we get rid of the inertia of thinking that fixes the generation, use, and connection methods of weapons, we can turn decay into magic; if we think that fighting modern warfare must rely on advanced weapons, and blindly believe in the magical effects of such weapons, On the contrary, it will turn magic into decay.We are in the stage of a weapon revolution in which the weapon system marked by gunpowder is leaping to the weapon system marked by information. During this period, there will be a relatively long period of weapon replacement.Right now we cannot predict how long this period will be, but what is certain is that as long as this change is not over, it is the best way for any country, including the United States, which has the most advanced weapons, to deal with the relationship between weapons and combat. Basic approach.It should be pointed out that the most basic is not necessarily the most promising.Being aggressive on a negative premise is a specific practice at a specific time, not an eternal law.The progress of science and technology has already changed from passive discovery to active invention in the hands of human beings. The Americans put forward the idea of ​​"making weapons according to the battle", which triggered the biggest change in the relationship between weapons and tactics since the beginning of war.First determine the combat method and then develop weapons. In this regard, the first crab that Americans have eaten is "air-ground integrated combat", and the popular "digital battlefield" and "digital army"[10] are its latest attempt.This approach indicates that the position that weapons are always ahead of the military revolution has been shaken. Tactics come first and weapons follow, or the two strengthen each other, pushing and pulling forward to form a new relationship between them.At the same time, the weapon itself has undergone an epoch-making evolution. Its development is no longer just based on the improvement of the performance of a single weapon, but more on whether the weapon has good performance in connection and matching with other weapons.The lessons learned from the F-111, which was so advanced that it could only be put on the shelf because it was too advanced to match other weapons, have been learned. Those who try to rely on one or two high-tech weapons as "killer steel" can kill the enemy Ideas are clearly outdated. The practice of "making what kind of weapons you fight" has distinctive characteristics of the times and laboratories. It can be regarded as a kind of active choice, or it can be regarded as a constant change strategy. It is brewing the history of war. At the same time, it also implies the potential crisis of modern warfare: tailoring a weapon system for a method of warfare that is still under discussion and research is like preparing dishes for a feast that does not know who is coming. It may be a thousand miles away. Judging from the helpless performance of the U.S. military after encountering Aidid’s army in Somalia, the most modern army does not have the ability to adjust the crowd and cannot deal with an opponent who does not follow the rules.On the battlefield of the future, the digitized army is likely to be like a chef who is good at cooking lobster with cream, facing the guerrillas who insist on eating corn on the cob.The "generational gap" between weapons and the army[11] may be an issue that needs special attention. The closer the generational gap is, the more obvious the results of the war will be for the side with the higher generation, and the wider the generational gap is, the fewer ways to deal with each other. It may even be impossible for anyone to eat anyone. Judging from the existing war cases, it is difficult for high-tech troops to cope with irregular warfare and low-tech warfare. There may be some laws in this, at least it is an interesting phenomenon worthy of study ]. [10] Beginning with "Air-Land Battle", the development of U.S. weapons and equipment is generally divided into five stages: demand presentation, plan formulation, plan demonstration, engineering development and production, and equipping troops.The equipment of the digital army is also developed in this way. (U.S. "Army" magazine, October 1995 issue) In March 1997, the U.S. Army held a brigade-scale advanced combat experiment and tested 58 types of digital equipment. (U.S. Army Times, March 31, April 7, 28, 1997) According to the introduction of General John E. Wilson, commander of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, his mission is to cooperate with the Training and Doctrine Command, For their bold and original ideas, develop the advanced technical equipment that suits their needs. (U.S. Army Magazine, October 1997 issue) [11] Slipchenko, director of the Scientific Research Department of the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, believes that war and weapons have gone through five generations, and are now heading towards the sixth generation. (Zhu Xiaoli, Zhao Xiaozhuo, "The New American-Russian Military Revolution", Military Science Press, 1996 edition, P6) [12] The 11th issue of "Journal of National Defense University" in 1998 published Chen Bojiang's interview with Philip Odien, chairman of the US Defense Subcommittee.Philip Odeon mentioned "asymmetric warfare" many times, thinking that this is a new threat to the United States.Antulia Echeverlia published an article in the "Parameter" magazine, stating that "the most difficult thing to deal with in the post-industrial era is still the people's war". New Concept Weapons and New Concept Weapons In contrast to new concept weapons, almost all weapons we know so far can be collectively referred to as old concept weapons.So it is called old because the basic performance of this type of weapon is mobility plus lethality.Even high-tech weapons such as precision-guided bombs are nothing more than the addition of two factors: intelligence and structural strength.From a practical point of view, no matter how it is modified, it cannot change the nature of its traditional weapon, that is, it has always been mastered by professional fighters and used on certain battlefields.All these weapons and weapon platforms manufactured along the traditional line of thought have, without exception, reached a dead end in their efforts to adapt to modern warfare and future warfare.Those who want to use high-tech magic to turn traditional weapons into gold and transform them into new ones.Eventually fall into the high-tech trap of endless consumption of limited funds and arms race.This is the paradox that must be faced in the development of traditional weapons: In order to maintain the lead in weapons, we can only increase the research and development funding layer by layer; as a result of layer upon layer increase, no one has enough funds to maintain the lead.The final result is that the sharp weapon for defending the country has instead become an incentive for the country to go bankrupt. The most recent illustration is perhaps most convincing.Marshal Olgakov, the former Chief of General Staff of the Soviet Army, had a keen insight into the development trend of weapons in the "post-nuclear era". .But the advanced thinking did not bring happiness to his country, but brought disastrous consequences [13].Once this idea, which was considered unique by his colleagues in the context of the Cold War, was put forward, it greatly intensified the long-standing arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, but no one would have expected it at the time. The result was the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its Completely out of the superpower race.A mighty empire fell apart without firing a single shot, which is a living proof of Kipling's famous poem: the demise of an empire is not a bang, but a puff.The former Soviet Union is not alone. Today's Americans seem to be following in the footsteps of their old adversaries, providing new evidence for the paradox of weapons development we have proposed.As the outline of the era of technological synthesis becomes increasingly clear, they invest more and more in the development of new weapons, and the price of weapons becomes more and more expensive. In the 1960s and 1970s, the cost of developing the F-14 and F-15 was 1 billion U.S. dollars. In the 1980s, the development of the B-2 aircraft exceeded 10 billion U.S. dollars, while the development cost of the F-22 aircraft in the 1990s exceeded 13 billion U.S. dollars. In terms of weight, the unit price of the B-2 aircraft is 1.3-1.5 billion U.S. dollars[14] It is three times more expensive than gold of the same weight [15].Expensive weapons like this abound in the arsenal of the U.S. military, such as F-117A bombers, F-22 main combat aircraft, and "Comanche" armed helicopters. The prices of these weapons almost exceed or approach hundreds of millions of dollars. Weapons with such an unreasonable ratio of effectiveness put more and more heavy armor on the U.S. military, dragging them step by step into the trap of high-tech weapons that have increased expenditures.Even if Americans with deep pockets are like this, how far can other countries that are often cash-strapped go on this road?Obviously, it is difficult for anyone to go on.The way out of the predicament is of course to find another way. [13] American defense experts believe that Olgakov has seen that electronic technology will revolutionize conventional weapons and make them replace nuclear weapons in effect.However, Olgakov's foresight on the issue of military revolution ran aground due to institutional problems, "If a country follows the technological revolution, the cost is extremely high, beyond the limits of its institutional and material conditions, and it still insists on compete with its opponents in terms of military power, then the result can only be that it falls further behind in terms of available military power. This is the fate of Russia in the Tsarist and Soviet times: the Soviet Union bears an unbearable military burden, and the military is unwilling Accept the demands of a shrinking strategy." (See Stephen Blank, "Preparing for the Next War: Some Perspectives on a Revolution in Military Affairs," Spring 1996, U.S. "Strategic Review") [14] In 1981, the U.S. Air Force expected to invest 22 billion U.S. dollars to produce 132 B-2s.But 8 years later, the money only produced a B-2 aircraft.If calculated by unit weight value, a B-2 is three times the value of gold of the same weight. (See "Modern Military", No. 8, 1998, P33, Zhu Zhihao's "Analysis of America's Stealth Technology Policy") [15] The U.S. Department of Defense analyzed the situation of the air strike on Iraq on January 13, 1993, and believed that high-tech weapons had many limitations, and that combined-effect bombs were sometimes more effective than precision bombs. (U.S. "Aviation and Space Technology Weekly", January 25, 1993) Thus, a new concept of weapons came into being.It just makes people feel a little unfair that it is the Americans who are ahead of the trend in this respect.As early as during the Vietnam War, the silver iodide powder that was dropped over the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" to cause a torrential rain and the defoliants that were evacuated in the subtropical jungle made the "American devils" dominate in both new concept weapons and cruel methods .In the following 30 years, they were even more powerless to catch up in this field under the dual advantages of financial resources and technology. However, the Americans are not always in the limelight. It is logical to propose a new concept of weapons with a wider range after the new concept weapons, but the Americans failed to sort out the clues in this regard.Because proposing a new concept of weapons does not need to rely on new technology as a springboard, it only needs a bright and sharp thinking.And this is not the strong point of Americans whose ideas are attached to technology.Americans always pause for thought in areas where technology has not yet reached.It is undeniable that artificially created earthquakes, tsunamis, disastrous weather or infrasound waves, and new chemical weapons are all new concept weapons[16], and are quite different from what we usually call weapons, but they are still Weapons aimed at direct killing and damage related to the military, soldiers, and arms dealers.In this sense, they are nothing more than non-traditional weapons that have changed the mechanism of weapons and multiplied their lethality and damage. [16] New concept weapons mainly include kinetic energy weapons, directed energy weapons, infrasound weapons, geophysical weapons, meteorological weapons, solar weapons, genetic weapons, etc. ("Cross-Century Military New Viewpoint", Military Science Press, P3) The new concept of weapons is different.It is completely different from the so-called new concept weapons.If we say that new-concept weapons are weapons that go beyond the scope of traditional weapons, can be mastered and operated on a technical level, and can cause material or spiritual damage to the enemy, then such weapons are still narrowly defined in the face of the new concept of weapons. weapons.Because the new concept of weapons is a broad view of weapons, which regards all means that go beyond the military field but can still be used in war operations as weapons.In its eyes, everything that can benefit mankind can harm mankind.In other words, there is nothing in the world today that cannot be a weapon, which requires us to have the awareness of breaking all boundaries in our understanding of weapons.When the development of technology is trying to increase the variety of weapons, the breakthrough of thought has expanded the territory of the weapon kingdom in one fell swoop.In our opinion, a man-made stock market crash, a computer virus intrusion, a change in the exchange rate of an enemy country, or a gossip or scandal that derailed the head of the enemy country on the Internet can all be included in the list of new concept weapons.The new concept of weapons provides direction for the new concept of weapons, and the new concept of weapons makes the new concept of weapons fixed.For the emergence of a large number of new concept weapons, technology is no longer the main factor, and the real underlying reason is the new concept of weapons. To be clear, the new concept of weapons is creating weapons that are closely related to civilian life.If the first sentence we say is: the emergence of new concept weapons will definitely raise future warfare to a level that ordinary people and even soldiers can hardly imagine; the second sentence we want to say should be: new concept of weapons It will make ordinary people and soldiers alike feel astonished that the things they take for granted around them can also become weapons of war.I believe that people will be surprised to find that many gentle and peaceful things have begun to be aggressive and lethal when they wake up one morning. Weapon's "Benevolence" Tendency Before the appearance of the atomic bomb, wars had been in the "age of shortage" of lethality.Efforts to improve weapons are mainly aimed at increasing lethality. From "light weapons" consisting of cold weapons and single-shot firearms to "heavy killing weapons" composed of various automatic firearms, the history of weapon development is almost a continuous increase in weapons lethal process.Prolonged shortages have created an insatiable thirst for weapons with greater lethality.With a red cloud rising over the wilderness of New Mexico, the soldiers finally got their wish to obtain a weapon of mass destruction, which can not only kill all the enemies, but also kill them a hundred times a thousand times. Second-rate.It enables human beings to possess more lethality than necessary, and for the first time, the lethality of war has a surplus. Philosophical principles tell us that everything reaches its extreme and turns to its opposite.The invention of "super-killing weapons" [17] like nuclear weapons that can destroy all human beings has made human beings fall into the survival trap set by themselves.Nuclear weapons have become the sword of Damocles hanging over human heads, forcing people to think: Do we really need "super-kill weapons"?What's the difference between killing an enemy a hundred times and killing it once?What's the point of defeating an enemy while risking the destruction of the planet?How to avoid a war of mutual destruction? The "balance of terror" of "assuring mutual destruction" is a direct outgrowth of these considerations, and its by-product is to provide the brakes on the ever-increasing frenzy of increased weapon lethality so that weapon development is no longer along the The high-speed channel of light killing weapons-heavy killing weapons-super killing weapons is rushing forward, and people are trying to find a new path for weapon development, which must be effective and control the lethality of weapons. [17] Replacing the concept of "weapons of mass destruction" with the concept of "ultra-kill weapons" is intended to emphasize that the lethality of such weapons exceeds the needs of war and is the product of extreme human thinking. Any major technological invention will have a profound humanistic background. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and more than 50 related conventions thereafter stipulated a set of international human rights norms for the world, which determined that the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, seriously violated the "right to life" , is a "crime against humanity".Under the influence of new political concepts such as human rights, coupled with the trend of international economic integration, the interest requirements and political opinions of various social and political forces are intertwined, and the concept of "ultimate care" for the ecological environment, especially the value of human life, is proposed. This leads to scruples about killing and destroying, forming new war values ​​and new war ethics.The "benevolence" of weapons [18] is the response to this great change in the cultural background of human beings in the production and development of weapons.At the same time, the advancement of technology also has the means to directly attack the enemy's center without harming others, providing many new options for winning, all of which make people believe that the best way to win is to control rather than kill.The concepts of war and weapons have all changed, and the idea of ​​forcing the enemy to surrender unconditionally through unrestrained killing has become a relic of the old era.War has bid farewell to the era of the Verdun-style meat grinder. [18] The "compassion" in "kindness" weapons mainly refers to the reduction of killing and collateral damage. The emergence of precision (precision) weapons and non-lethal (non-lethal) weapons is a turning point in the development of weapons. It marks the first time that weapons do not develop in the direction of "strengthening", but show a tendency of "benevolence".Precision weapons can strike targets precisely and reduce collateral damage, such as the gamma knife, which can remove tumors with little bloodshed. It has led to the emergence of new tactics such as "surgical" strikes, making humble combat operations possible Received a very significant strategic effect.For example, the Russians only used a missile to track the mobile phone signal, which made the troublesome Dudayev shut his tough mouth forever, and by the way, eased the huge trouble caused by the little Chechnya.Non-lethal weapons can effectively disable personnel and equipment, but will not kill people [19].The tendency embodied by these weapons marks that human beings are overcoming their own extreme thinking and beginning to learn to control the lethality they already possess but are becoming increasingly redundant.在海湾战争长达一个多月的大轰炸中，伊拉克平民的死亡人数仅以千数计[20]，远远低于二战期间的德累斯敦大轰炸。慈化武器是人类在武器领域进行多种选择中最新的一种自觉的选择，它在给武器注入了新技术的因素之后，又加入了人性成份，从而破天荒地使战争涂上了温情色彩。但慈化的武器仍然是武器，并不会因慈化的需要便降低武器的战场效能。剥夺一辆坦克的作战能力，可以用炮弹、导弹去摧毁它，也可以用激光束去毁坏它的光学设备或是使乘员致盲。在战场上，一个伤员比一名阵亡者需要更多的照料，无人武器平台可以省去越来越昂贵的防护设施，发展慈化武器的人肯定已经对此经过了冷冰冰的费效比计算。杀伤人员可以剥夺敌人的战斗力，让敌人恐慌且丧失战斗意志，可谓非常上算的取胜之道。今天我们已经拥有足够的技术，可以创造许多更有效的造成恐惧的办法。像在天幕上用激光束投射一个受难圣徒的影像，就足以震慑那些虔信宗教的士兵。制造这样的武器在技术上已没有什么障碍，只是需要往技术成份中添加更多一些想像力。 [19]据英国《国际防务评论》杂志1993年4月号披露，美军大力研究包括光学武器、高能微波弹、声束武器和脉冲化学激光在内的多种非杀伤性武器。《简氏防务周刊》1996年3月6日报道，美国国防部非杀伤性武器高级指导委员会制定了一项政策，对此类武器的研制、采购和使用做了规定。 此外，据《1997世界军事年鉴》（P521－522）介绍，美国国防部成立"非致命武器研究领导小组"，目标是使非致命武器尽早出现在武器清单上。 [20]见军事科学院《外军资料》，1993年3月26日，27期P3。 慈化武器是武器新概念的派生物，而信息武器则是慈化武器的突出代表。不论是进行硬摧毁的电磁能武器，还是实行软打击的电脑逻辑炸弹、网络病毒、媒体武器，都是着眼于瘫痪和破坏而不是人员杀伤。慈化武器这种只可能诞生在技术综合时代的武器，极可能正是最有前途的武器发展趋势，同时也就会带来我们今天还无法想象和预知的战争状态或是军事革命，它是人类战争史迄今为止最具深刻内涵的改变，是新旧战争状态的分水岭。因为它的出现，已足以把冷热兵器时代的战争统统划进"旧"的时代。尽管如此，我们仍不能沉湎于技术浪漫主义的幻想，以为战争从此就会成为电子游戏般的对抗，即便在计算机房内完成的虚拟战争也同样需要以国家的整体实力为前提，一个泥足巨人拿出十套虚拟战争的方案，也不足以威慑任何在实力上强于它的敌人。战争乃死生之地，存亡之道，容不得丝毫的天真。哪怕有一天所有的武器都被充分慈化了，一场或许可以避免流血的慈化战争却依旧是战争，它可以改变战争的残酷过程，却无法改变战争强制性的本质，因而也就无法改变残酷的结局。