Chapter 3 Chapter 2 The face of God of War is blurred

Throughout history, warfare has always changed. — Bovel Since the ancestors turned the hunting of animals into the killing of the same kind, the giant beast of war has always been locked on the bloody battlefield by armored soldiers driven by different purposes.War is a matter for soldiers, and it seems to have become a matter of course.For thousands of years, soldiers-weapons-battlefield have always been the three indispensable hardware for any war, and what runs through it is its software: the purpose of war.All this constitutes the basic elements of war, and no one has ever questioned it.The problem is that one day, when people find that all those seemingly unchanging elements become uncertain, will the face of God of War be clear?

Why and for whom? For the ancient Greeks, the purpose of the Trojan War was obvious and simple, and the beauty Helen was worth fighting for for a decade, if Homer's epic records are true.The limited field of vision, the narrow scope of activities, the low level of survival needs, and the serious lack of lethality of weapons, all of which made the wars conducted by our ancestors mostly simple in terms of goals, and there was hardly any complexity.As long as it is something that cannot be obtained by normal means, they will generally use extraordinary means to obtain it without hesitation.It is from this that Clausewitz wrote his famous saying that has been regarded as the creed of generations of soldiers and politicians: "War is the continuation of politics."They might fight for the authenticity of a religious sect, or for a lush pasture, or even for spices, for spirits, for the love affairs of kings and queens, leaving in the history books such as Spice Wars, Lover's War, Rum Rebellion, etc. are ridiculous entries.Added to this was the war the British waged against the Qing Empire over the opium trade, probably the largest state drug-trafficking operation ever recorded.It is not difficult to see from this that pre-modern wars were single in motivation and action.Later, Hitler proposed "strive for the living space for the German nation" and the Japanese so-called "construction of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". It is just an attempt to redefine the sphere of influence of the old powers and seize their colonial interests.

Today, however, it is not so easy to judge why people fight.Especially after the end of the Cold War, the Iron Curtain between the two camps suddenly collapsed. Whether it was the ideal of "exporting revolution" or the slogan of "containing the expansion of communism", they all lost the call to climb high and echoed like a cloud. force.The era of barriers is over.Who is our enemy?Who are our friends?This question, which was once the primary question for both revolution and counter-revolution, suddenly became confusing and difficult to grasp.Yesterday's letting go is becoming today's partner, and former allies may meet in the next battle.In the first year, Iraq, which slammed Iran for the Americans in the Iran-Iraq War, became the target of the U.S. military in the second year[1]; the Afghan guerrillas trained by the CIA turned into U.S. The latest targets of cruise missiles; Greece and Turkey, both members of NATO, almost used force for the Cyprus issue, while Japan and South Korea, which have signed an alliance, almost tore their skins over a small island.All of these have repeatedly confirmed the old saying: there are no constant friends, only constant interests.The kaleidoscope of war is shaken by the hands of interests, presenting an ever-changing mirror image.The rapid development of high-tech has promoted the process of globalization, which has exacerbated the uncertainty of the differentiation and combination of interests.From territorial resources, religious beliefs, tribal hatred, ideology, to market share, power distribution, trade sanctions, and financial turmoil, everything can be a reason to go to war. Different interest demands blur the purpose of war, making people more and more It's hard to tell what they're fighting for[2].

[1] The close relationship between Iraq and the United States can be found in "Desert Warriors--The Joint Force Commander's Views on the Gulf War" (Military Yiwen Publishing House, P212), "Iraq once established a very close relationship with the United States. It used to Received from the United States weapons, valuable intelligence on Iranian movements, and U.S. armed support against the Iranian Navy." [2] In the February issue of the American "Military Officer" magazine in 1993, the article "Talking about the Great Changes in the Security Environment" by Secretary of Defense Aspin was published.

Needless to say, every boy who fought in the Gulf War will tell you that they fought to restore justice to weak Kuwait.But the real purpose of war may be far removed from this grandiose reason, under which they hide without fear of facing the sun directly.In fact, every country participating in the war decided to devote itself to "Desert Storm" after carefully weighing its own motives and goals.Throughout the war, the West was fighting for their oil lifeline. On top of this main goal, the Americans added the pursuit of establishing a new world order marked by the United States, and perhaps a missionary style of maintaining justice. Enthusiasm; the Saudis were willing to break Muslim taboos and "dance with wolves" in order to eliminate the imminent threat; the British responded enthusiastically to President Bush's every move from beginning to end in return for Uncle Sam's great help in the Falklands War; The French, in order not to lose their traditional influence in the Middle East, finally sent troops to the Gulf at the last moment.Of course, a war waged under such circumstances cannot be a competition for a single goal. The interests of many participating countries make a contemporary war like "Desert Storm" a war of different interests under the banner of common interests. The pursuit of profit.Therefore, the so-called common interest has become the greatest common divisor that can be accepted by all parties involved in the war equation.If we want to fight a war together, we must take into account the interests of all parties, because different countries will definitely have different interest demands in the same war, and even within a country, different interest groups have their own demands for war.The complex interests make it impossible for us to attribute the Gulf War to whether it is a fight for oil, a fight for a new order, or a fight to expel the aggressors.Only a very small number of soldiers will understand the principle that everyone in the statesman understands: the biggest difference between modern warfare and past warfare is that the overt goal and the covert goal are often two different things.

Where to fight? "Go to the battlefield!" The young man with his luggage bid farewell to his family, and the girl and relatives sent them off tearfully.This is a typical scene in a war movie.It doesn't matter whether the young man left on horseback, by train, by boat, or by plane.The important thing is that the destination will never change - the battlefield of war. In the long era of cold weapons, the battlefield was small and compact, and two large armies could fight each other on a flat ground, a pass or a city.In the eyes of modern soldiers, the fascinating ancient battlefields are just inconspicuous dot targets on military maps, which simply cannot accommodate the magnificent scenes of modern wars.It was the emergence of firearms that led to the loosening of the army formation, and the dotted battlefield was gradually drawn into skirmish lines.The trench warfare stretching thousands of miles in World War I expanded the point-and-line battlefield to the extreme and at the same time turned it into a surface battlefield tens of kilometers deep.For the combatants at the time, the new battlefield meant ditches, bunkers, barbed wire, machine guns and shell craters. They called the heavy-casualty wars waged on such battlefields "slaughterhouses" and "meat grinders."The explosive evolution of military technology is constantly brewing the explosive expansion of the battlefield space.It didn't take as long for the battlefield to go from point to line, and from plane to three-dimensional. It can be said that it almost followed.While tanks roared over trenches, Zeppelins had long since learned to drop bombs, and propeller planes were loaded with machine guns.It's just that the development of weapons does not automatically bring about changes in the battlefield. Any major progress in the history of warfare depends on the active innovation of military strategists.Fuller's "Tanks in the Great War 1914-1918" and Douhet's "Air Supremacy", together with the large-scale deep combat proposed and directed by Tukhachevsky, transformed the battlefield that has been on the surface for thousands of years at once. Lifted to the three-dimensional space.Another person who tried to completely change the battlefield was Ludendorff. He put forward the theory of "total warfare" and wanted to integrate the battlefield with the non-battlefield. Pioneer of military thought.The battlefields of Ludendorff are destined to be only in Masurian Lake and Verdun.This is the fate of a soldier and his time.At that time, the wingspan of the God of War could not reach farther than the range of the Krooper cannon, and of course it was impossible to shoot a cannonball with a parabola running through the front and rear. Twenty years later, Hitler, who was luckier than Ludendorff, mastered long-range weapons. He used Mercedes bombers and V-1 and V-2 missiles to break the record that no invaders have ever touched the British Isles.Hitler, who was neither a strategist nor a tactician, confused the front and rear boundaries of war with his intuition, but he did not really understand the revolutionary significance of breaking the barrier between the battlefield and the non-battlefield.Perhaps, for a full-fledged war madman and half-baked military strategist, this is impossible thinking.

But this revolution will come sooner or later.This time, technology is once again ahead of thought.Before a single military thinker came up with an extremely broad concept of the battlefield, technology has done its best to expand the modern battlefield to an almost limitless level.There are satellites in space, submarines on the seabed, ballistic missiles can hit anywhere on the earth, and electronic countermeasures are going on in the invisible electromagnetic space. Even the inner world, the last refuge of human beings, cannot escape the blow of psychological warfare. escape everywhere.The concept of the width, depth and height of the combat area has become outdated, and the battlefield space is approaching the limit with the human imagination and the degree of mastery of technology.

Even so, the thought driven by technology is still unwilling to stop its pace.Because the former has shown the latter a more attractive prospect: it is far from enough to expand the scope of the battlefield in the mesoscopic space of common sense.Changes in the future battlefield can no longer be a mechanical amplification of the previous battlefield.The view that wars fought in deeper oceans or higher in the sky is the expansion trend of future battlefields is just a superficial observation and conclusion that stays at the level of ordinary physics.The truly revolutionary changes in the battlefield come from the expansion of unnatural space. You cannot regard the electromagnetic space as the battlefield space in the original sense. It is an alternative space created by technology and dependent on technology. In this "artificial space" or In the so-called "technical space" [3], the concepts of length, width, height, or land, sea, air, and sky lose their meaning, because electromagnetic signals do not occupy any common sense space and at the same time can fill and control this space special existence.It can be expected that every major change or extension of the battlefield space in the future depends on whether a certain technological invention or combination of multiple technologies can create a brand new technological space.The "cyberspace" that is attracting the attention of contemporary soldiers is a technical space formed by electronic and information technology coupled with specially designed unique connection methods. If wars in this space are still controlled by humans , followed by the emergence of "nano-space", is expected to enable mankind to truly realize the dream of unmanned warfare.Some soldiers full of imagination and creativity are trying to introduce tomorrow's war into the space formed by these new technologies.The Battlefield - The moment when the arena of warfare will fundamentally change is not far off.It won't be long before cyber-wars or nano-wars are happening all around us without anyone noticing them.It will be fierce and bloodless, but it will still determine the victor and the loser.In more cases, this kind of war will go hand in hand with war in the traditional sense.Two kinds of battlefield spaces—common sense space and technical space, both overlap and intersect, both act independently and act as exteriors and interiors of each other, so that wars are simultaneously carried out in macroscopic, mesoscopic, microcosmic and other fields with different physical characteristics, and finally constitute the history of human warfare. An unprecedented battlefield spectacle.at the same time, as military and civilian technologies, professional soldiers and non-professional fighters, become increasingly indistinguishable from one another, the battlespace will increasingly overlap with the non-battlefield space, blurring the lines between the two unclear.The fields that were originally isolated from each other have all been opened up, and any space has been endowed with battlefield meaning by humans.As long as you have the ability to attack any target, anywhere and by any means, the battlefield is everywhere.Just imagine, if a war to the death of the enemy country can be launched in a computer studio or a stock exchange, then where is there any non-battlefield space?

[3] "Technical space", this is a new concept we put forward to distinguish physical space. Comparison of old and new security environments Old Security Environment New Security Environment Bipolar geopolitical environment (stereotype) predictable communism America is the number one western power fixed alliance United Nations Paralyzed Multipolar (Complicated) uncertain nationalism and religious extremism America is the number one military power temporary alliance united nations active Single Threat to the U.S. (Soviet Union) Threatening America's Survival clear

Deterrent Europe Upgrading is dangerous use of strategic nuclear weapons open multipolarity jeopardize US interests unclear unstoppable other areas Little risk of upgrading terrorists use nuclear weapons hidden war of attrition proxy war Mainly rely on high technology frontier deployment forward garrison host nation support for decisive strikes against key targets direct reinforcements Comprehensive use of high, medium and low technology power projection native garrison self reliance From the table above, it can be seen that Americans are sensitive to changes in their security environment, and it can also be seen that various forces and factors have restricted and influenced the formation of a new world pattern after the end of the Cold War.

If the young man who was ordered to set off asked at this time: Where is my battlefield? The answer is: anywhere. Who is fighting? Taking the Chinese military's "Millions of Disarmament" in 1985 as a prelude, for more than ten years, major countries in the world have successively reduced their armed forces round after round.In the opinion of many military commentators, the end of the Cold War and the eagerness of countries that used to be at odds with each other to share the dividends of peace are an important reason for this general disarmament around the world.As everyone knows, this is just the tip of the iceberg exposed to the sea.The reason for the downsizing of the army is far more than this, and the deeper reason is that the large-scale professional army formed on the large industrial assembly line and formed according to the needs of mechanized warfare is obviously too large in the face of the rising tide of information warfare. Huge and overwhelming.Because of this, far-sighted countries are not mainly focusing on reducing the number of people in this military downsizing, but paying more attention to the quality of military members, the improvement of high-tech content in weapons and equipment, and even the update of military thinking and combat theory[4] . The era of "Jiujiu Wufu Country's Gancheng" is a thing of the past.In a world where even nuclear war may become an old military language, a white-faced scholar wearing deep myopia glasses is more suitable for a modern soldier than a strong man with a low forehead and bulging biceps.The story about a lieutenant officer disarming a squadron with a modem circulating in the Western military circles is perhaps the best evidence [5].After a full hundred years of uninterrupted technological explosion in the 20th century, and perhaps with the influence of rock music, disco, World Cup, NBA and Hollywood, the world's popular culture, the generation gap between today's soldiers and their predecessors is just It is as clear as the generation difference of weapons we pointed out earlier.This generational difference shows a clear difference both in physical ability and in intelligence. The new generation of soldiers born in the 1970s and 1980s, even with the beast camp training at West Point Military Academy, can hardly shed their roots in contemporary society. Weak habits.Modern weapon systems also provide them with the possibility to stay away from the usual battlefield and strike the enemy from a place beyond the line of sight, without having to face the possibility of bloody fighting, making each soldier a humble gentleman who is far away from the kitchen.Digital warriors are beginning to replace the Predator's unshakable position in warfare for thousands of years. [4] According to the 1998 Fiscal Year National Defense Report of the U.S. Department of Defense, since 1989, the number of U.S. troops has decreased by 32%, and a large number of old equipment has been eliminated, which has improved the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military under the condition of a large number of personnel reductions. In May 1997, the U.S. Department of Defense published the "Four-Year Defense Review Report", emphasizing "focusing on the future and reforming the U.S. military," advocating building an army based on new military theories, continuing to reduce personnel, but relatively increasing equipment procurement costs. [5] This story first appeared in the British "Sunday Telegraph". According to the newspaper, in order to test the security of national defense electronic systems, the US military held a "United Warriors" event on September 18-25, 1995. "The exercise.During the exercise, the air force officer successfully invaded the naval command system (Hu Yongfan Haiyan "Network Is King", Hainan Publishing House, p258-259).There are many similar stories, but some military experts believe that this is a hoax. After the debut of information technology and the breaking down of the barriers of the traditional division of labor in the large industrial society, war is no longer a forbidden place for professional soldiers to go back and forth alone, and it has begun to show a tendency of "civilianization" [6].This tendency is not influenced by Mao Zedong's "all people are soldiers" theory, because it does not require extensive popular mobilization, and even on the contrary, it is just the technical elites among the civilians breaking in uninvited, making professional soldiers and professional warfare Had to face a somewhat embarrassing challenge: who is more likely to be the protagonist of the next unknown war?The first and most famous challenger was the computer "hacker".Most of these guys who have not received military training and have never engaged in military occupations can easily cause major harm to the military or national security just by relying on their personal technical expertise.A typical example is listed in the US "FM100-6 Information Warfare" ordinance: In 1994, a computer hacker attacked the US Air Force Development Center in New York from the UK, endangering the security of 30 systems and invading more than 100 other systems. System, victims include South Korea's Atomic Research Institute, NASA.What is surprising is not only the wide spread of this attack and the great harm, but also the fact that this hacker is only a 16-year-old boy.An intrusion by a young hacker for the purpose of gaming certainly cannot be regarded as an act of war.The question is how do you determine what is game damage and what is war damage?What is the individual behavior of civilians, and what is the hostilities of non-professional fighters or even organized state hacker wars? In 1994, the US Department of Defense suffered 230,000 security-related network intrusions.How many organized sabotage operations by non-professional fighters here?You may never know[7]. [6] The Tofflers wrote in their book "War and Anti-War", "If the tools of war are no longer tanks and artillery, but computer viruses and ultra-micro robots, then it cannot be said that the armed groups are only the state. It is exclusive to military personnel." In his article "What the Military Revolution Brought—War Patterns in 2020," Colonel Shoichi Koma of the Japanese Self-Defense Force pointed out that the civilianization of warfare is an important feature of warfare in the 21st century. [7] Many hackers have adopted a new method of warfare that can be called "Internet Guerrilla Warfare". Corresponding to all kinds of people in society, there are also all kinds of people in the hacker family.All kinds of hackers with different backgrounds and values ​​are hidden in the green veil of the Internet, curious middle school students, online gold diggers, resentful company employees, out-and-out cyber terrorists or cyber mercenaries.These people are completely different from ideas to behaviors, but they gather in the same online world. They act according to their own unique ethical concepts and value judgments, and some of them are simply aimless. Not bound by the rules of the game in the real world.They can snatch other people's accounts by means of computers, delete the precious data that others have worked so hard to mischievously, and challenge evil forces with their superb online skills like the legendary Lone Ranger.The organized crime against Chinese Indonesians, which was strictly blocked by the Suharto government, was first disclosed on the Internet by eyewitnesses with a sense of justice. The army has been pushed to the moral judgment seat.Prior to this, another group of hackers who called themselves "MilwOrm" also staged a good show on the Internet.To protest the Indian nuclear test, they went through the firewall of the Indian Atomic Research Center network, changed its Web home page, and downloaded 5MB of data.This time the hackers were quite polite, they just clicked as far as they could and didn't cause too much trouble for their opponents.Such actions are symbolic in addition to their effects: in the information age, a nuclear bomb may not be as effective as a hacker. More murderous than hackers and more threatening to the real world, are those non-state organizations that make the Western world shudder when their names are mentioned.These are more or less military overtones like Islamic Jihad, white militias in the US, Aum Shinrikyo in Japan until recently the bin laden-style terror that bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania Groups are mostly driven by extreme beliefs and motives.Their various grotesque acts of sabotage are undoubtedly more likely than single-handed hacking to become the new source of contemporary warfare.Countries and militaries that follow certain rules and only use limited forces to achieve limited goals often find it difficult to gain the upper hand when confronting organizations that never follow any rules and dare to use unlimited means to fight infinite wars. Since the 1990s, in parallel with a series of military operations carried out by non-professional fighters and non-state organizations, another type of non-military warfare by non-professional fighters has also begun to emerge.These people are neither hackers in the general sense nor members of those paramilitary organizations. He may be a system analyst, a software engineer, a stock trader or a financier with a lot of hot money, or even a A media tycoon, well-known columnist and TV host who controls multiple media outlets.Different from some blind and cruel terrorists, they usually have a firm philosophy of life, the fanaticism of their beliefs is no less than that of bin Laden, and they do not lack the courage and motivation to join a battle at any time.Measured by such standards, who can say that Soros is not a financial terrorist? This is how modern technology has changed the weapons and the battlefield, but at the same time blurred the concept of combatants.War is no longer the monopoly of soldiers. One of the by-products of the globalization trend brought about by technological integration is global terrorist activities. Non-professional fighters and non-state organizations are posing an increasing threat to sovereign states, which makes them the most important part of any professional army. increasingly heavy opponents.Compared with them, the professional army is like a dinosaur that is huge but lacks adaptability in the face of the new era, and these people are extremely survivable rodents, which can use their sharp teeth to eat half of the world. With what means and in what way to fight? When it comes to the means and methods of warfare in the future, the views of the Americans cannot be bypassed.Not only because it is the last Tyrannosaurus rex in the world, but also because their views on this issue are indeed superior to those of soldiers from other countries.Not to mention anything else, simply summarizing future warfare into four main combat styles: information warfare, precision warfare[8], joint operations[9] and non-combat military operations[10], we can see that it is both imaginative and very imaginative. Real Americans have a deep understanding of the future war in their eyes.These four combat styles, except that joint operations evolved from traditional contract operations, coordinated operations, and even air-ground integrated warfare, the other three are all products of new military thinking.Information warfare was identified by the former chief of staff of the U.S. Army, General Gordon Sullivan, as the basic combat style of future warfare.To this end, he formed the US military is also the world's first digital army.And based on the understanding that "future warfare will turn to information processing and stealth long-range strike as the main basis", the concept of precision warfare is proposed.In the eyes of the Americans, the emergence of high-tech weapons and equipment such as precision-guided weapons, global positioning systems, C4I systems and stealth aircraft may free soldiers from the Monroe of the war of attrition.Precision warfare, which is called "non-contact strike" by the Americans and "long-distance warfare" by the Russians[11], has the characteristics of concealment, speed, accuracy, high efficiency, and small collateral damage. It may be the future of decisive battles in the first battle In the war, this method of warfare, which had begun to show its edge during the Gulf War, is probably the preferred method that American generals are most willing to accept.But the really creative formulation is neither information warfare nor precision warfare, but military operations other than war.This concept is obviously based on the global interests that Americans have always claimed, with a typical American arrogance of "taking the world as our own responsibility".However, such an evaluation does not affect our approval of this concept, because after all, it is the first time that peacekeeping, anti-drugs, anti-violence, military aid, arms control, disaster relief, evacuation of overseas Chinese, and combating terrorist activities have all been used by human beings in the 20th to 21st centuries. Issues that need to be dealt with in an all-round way are all put into the basket of "military operations other than war", so that soldiers will not be at a loss in the world outside the battlefield.As a result, their thinking tentacles almost touched the edge of a generalized war.It's a pity that the basket was too small, and ultimately failed to include the brand-new concept of "non-military warfare operations", which is a truly revolutionary insight in human understanding of war. The difference between the two concepts of "operations other than military warfare" and "military operations other than warfare" is much greater than what is shown in the words, and it is definitely not a word game where some words are reversed.It can be considered that the latter only clearly names the tasks and actions of the military in a state of non-war, while the former extends the understanding of the state of war to all human activities far beyond what military operations can accommodate.This expansion is the natural result of man's inexhaustible use of means to ends.Although the Americans, who are in a leading position in almost all fields of military theory, did not take the lead in proposing this new concept of war, we must admit that the global proliferation of American-style pragmatism and the infinite possibilities provided by high-tech Sex is still the deep driving force behind this concept. [8] Precision warfare is a new combat style, which is based on the comprehensive result of the improvement of weapon accuracy and the increase of battlefield transparency. ([US] Richard Dunne, "From Gettysburg to After the Gulf War", quoted from "World Military Yearbook 1997", P294-295) [9] The Joint Chiefs of Staff document of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Army "2010 Joint Force Concept", found in the Summer 1996 issue of "Joint Force Quarterly". [10] See the 1993 version of the U.S. Army's "Battle Outline".See the June 1993 issue of the US Army magazine. [11] Vorobyov, a Russian tactical expert, pointed out after studying the Gulf War that long-distance combat is a promising combat method. (Russian "Military Thought", No. 11, 1992) So, what seemingly irrelevant methods have turned out to be "non-military warfare operations"--the darling of another kind of war that is being waged more and more frequently around the world? ★ trade war If "trade war" was just an adjective more than ten years ago, today it has indeed become a non-military war tool in the hands of many countries.Especially among the Americans, they are very handy and proficient: the international application of domestic trade laws, the arbitrary establishment and breaking of tariff barriers, trade sanctions at their fingertips, the blockade of key technologies, special 301 clauses, most-favored-nation treatment, etc., etc. And feet.Any one of these means can produce as much destructive effect as a single military operation.The 8-year total embargo against Iraq initiated by the United States is the most typical "war example" in this regard. ★ Financial War After experiencing the financial turmoil in Southeast Asia, no one has a deeper impression of "financial warfare" than Asians.No, it's not just an impression, it's heart-piercing: a financial sneak attack launched by international hot money owners deliberately overturned countries that were hailed as "little dragons" and "little tigers" by the world not long ago. On the ground, the economic prosperity that was once the envy of the whole West collapsed overnight like autumn leaves.After just one round, the economy of more than one country went backwards by 10 years.The loss of the economic front has brought the social and political order to a near collapse.The casualties caused by successive riots are no less than that of a local war, and the degree of damage to the social organism is even more serious than that of a local war.This is the first non-armed war waged by non-state organizations against a sovereign state by non-military means.As a result, financial warfare, as a form of non-military warfare that does not shed blood but is equally destructive, has officially entered the arena of warfare that has been dominated by soldiers and weapons, bloodshed and death for thousands of years.I believe it will not take long before it will become an official military language and will naturally enter various military dictionaries, and it will become a very eye-catching section in the 20th century war history edited by people at the beginning of the next century[12].The person who plays an important role in this section is not a politician or a military strategist, but George Soros.Of course, the use of financial weapons in combat is not Soros' exclusive patent.Before him, Cole used Mark to break through the Berlin Wall that could not be smashed down by shells[13]; after him, Lee Teng-hui took advantage of the Southeast Asian financial crisis to depreciate the Taiwan dollar to hit Hong Kong dollars, Hong Kong stocks, especially red chips.This is not counting the large and small "speculators" who flocked to this financial gluttonous dinner, including Morgan Stanley and Moody's who, in the name of publishing credit evaluation reports, reminded financial predators of their targets. [14] Such indirect participants and beneficiaries. [12] Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998, entitled "The Greatest Threat to Peace Is the Market".The article states, "The biggest threat to world peace right now is the financial market, not terrorist training camps." (Reference News, September 7, 1998) [13] Wang Jiannan's "Who and the Fight - Cole", China Broadcasting Press, 1997, P275, P232, P357. [14] The American "Christian Monitor" published an article "A New York Company Affecting the Economy" on July 29, 1998, which disclosed how Moody's credit rating report affected and even influenced the economic trends of Italy, South Korea, Japan, and Malaysia.See Reference News, August 20, 1998. Since entering the summer of 1998, the financial war that started a full year ago has launched its second round of battle on a wider battlefield.This time, it is not only the Southeast Asian countries that have suffered a terrible defeat in the previous year, but also two behemoths - Japan and Russia - who have been dragged into the war.The result is an increasingly dire and unmanageable global economic situation: the unseen flames are igniting even the fire-players' own shirts.It is said that Soros and his "Quantum Fund" lost billions of dollars in Russia and Hong Kong alone[15].This shows how destructive the financial war is.Today, when nuclear weapons have become frightening displays and are losing their practical value day by day, financial warfare is becoming a super strategic weapon that has attracted worldwide attention due to its hidden, maneuverable, and destructive features.In the recent riots in Albania, we can clearly see the role of various foundations set up by the wealthy and multinational groups. The fall of a legitimate government, what we might call a foundation-style financial war.What is worrying and must be faced squarely is that such wars tend to become more frequent and more intense, and are being used intentionally by more and more states and non-state organizations. [15] In his new book "The Crisis of Global Capitalism", Soros vomited bitterness and analyzed the lessons of the financial crisis based on his appalling investment record in 1998. ★ New terrorist warfare-compared to traditional terrorist warfare. Due to the limited scale, a terrorist war in the usual sense may cause fewer casualties than a war or battle, but it has a stronger color of violence, and without exception, it is not subject to any traditional social rules. Its military characteristics are to fight infinite wars with limited means.This feature always acts according to certain rules, so the national forces that can only use unlimited means to fight limited wars are always at a very disadvantageous position before the end of the war.This is why even a terrorist organization formed by a few youngsters often causes a headache for a powerful country like the United States, and the method of killing chickens with a sledgehammer often fails to work.The recent bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam at the same time are the latest proof.The exposure of bin Laden-style terrorism has strengthened the impression to the world that no country, no matter how powerful, can gain the upper hand in a game without rules.即便这个国家使自己也变成恐怖分子，就像美国人现在正在做的那样，也未必就能取胜。 不过，如果所有的恐怖分子把自己的行动仅仅局限在爆炸、绑架、暗杀和劫持飞机这类传统路数上的话，倒还不是最恐怖的事。真正让人感到恐怖的，是恐怖分子与各种可能成为超级武器的高新技术的相遇。这一前景眼下已令人堪忧地初露端倪。奥姆真理教徒在东京地铁施放"沙林"毒气，其恐怖效果远远超过了毒气造成的伤亡，这一事件警示人们，现代生化技术已经为那些企图大规模毁灭人类的恐怖分子锻造好了凶器[16]。与以通过滥杀无辜来制造恐怖效果的蒙面杀手们不同，意大利"长枪党武装"完全是另外一种类型的高技术恐怖组织，它目标明确，手段高超，专以突入银行和新闻机构的计算机网络，窃取存储资料、删改程序、散布虚假信息为能事，是典型的针对网络和媒体的恐怖行动。我们不妨把这种采用最新技术在最新领域与人类为敌的恐怖行动称作新恐怖战。 [16]美国一些安全专家向政府建议，要多储备解毒剂，以防止恐怖组织的化学袭击。 ★ 生态战 运用现代技术对河流、海洋、地壳、极地冰盖、大气环流和臭氧层的自然状态施以影响。通过改变降水、气温、大气成份、海平面高度、日照及引起地震等办法破坏地球物理环境或另造局域生态，这是一种新的非军事作战样式--生态战。也许用不了多久，人造"厄尔尼诺"或"拉尼娜"现象就可能成为某些国家或非国家组织手中的又一种超级武器。特别是那些带有恐怖性质的非国家组织，他们不承担对社会和民众的责任，一向不肯按牌理出牌，所以更容易成为发起生态战的主体。而现实的危险在于，为求得尽快的发展速度，全球生态环境经常处在灾变的临界线上，任何微小变量的加减，都足以引起一场生态浩劫。 除以上所述，我们还可举出非军事战争许多已有的和可能有的作战手段及方式，如造谣恫吓瓦解对方意志的心理战，搅乱市场打击经济秩序的走私战，操纵视听诱导舆论的媒体战，祸殃他国谋取暴利的毒品战，潜踪匿形防不胜防的网络战，自定标准垄断专利的技术战，展现实力示形于敌的虚拟战，掠夺储备攫取财富的资源战，明施恩惠暗图控制的经援战，引领时尚同化异己的文化战，把握先机创立规则的国际法战等等，举不胜举。在有多少种新技术就可能有多少种新的作战手段和方式（还不算这些手段方式的交叉组合及创造性使用）的时代，若想把所有的手段和方式都一一列举出来，简直是徒劳，并且也毫无意义。有意义的是所有这些已经加入、正在加入和将要加入战争行列的手段及其使用方式，已开始悄悄地改变整个人类的战争观：面对近乎无限多样的选择性，人们为什么要作茧自缚，把战争手段的挑选和使用，局限在武力和军事的范围之内？非武力、非军事、甚至是非杀伤、不流血的方式也同样甚至更可能有利于实现战争目标。这一前景顺理成章地修正了"战争是流血的政治"的说法，同时也就改变了人类一向把武力战当做解决冲突的终极手段的定见。显然，正是手段的多样化，放大了战争的概念，而概念放大的结果则是战争活动领域的放大。在这里，局限于传统战场的狭义战争将很难再找到自己的立足之地，发生在明天或后天的任何一场战争，都将是武力战和非武力战混合的鸡尾酒式的广义战争。 这种战争的目的将不会仅仅满足于"用武力手段强迫敌方接受自己的意志"，而应该是"用一切手段，包括武力和非武力、军事和非军事、杀伤和非杀伤的手段，强迫敌方满足自己的利益"。