Chapter 8 Chapter 7 All Laws into One: Transcendental Combinations

Today's wars affect the price of gasoline on the pipeline, the price of food in the supermarket, and the price of stocks on the stock exchange.They also disrupt the ecological balance and invade each of our homes through the television screen. — Alvin Toffler Knowing the law of victory does not mean that you can lock in victory, just like knowing the skills of long-distance running does not mean you can become a marathon champion.The discovery of the law of victory can deepen people's understanding of the law of war and improve the level of military art practice.But when it comes to the battlefield, the number of people who can win the victory will definitely not increase because of the deciphering of the law of victory.The key is to see who really masters the law of victory in essence.

In the next war that may come, the Law of Victory will have very strict requirements on the victor.In addition to requiring you to master all the tricks to compete for victory on the battlefield as always, it also puts forward requirements that most soldiers are underprepared or feel at a loss: winning wars in wars other than wars; victory. In this specific sense, even modern soldiers like Powell, Schwarzkopf, or even Sullivan and Shalikashvili are not considered "modern", but more like a group of traditional soldiers.Because there has been a gap between what we call the modern soldier and the traditional soldier.While this gap is not insurmountable, it requires a radical leap of military thinking.For many professional soldiers, this is almost impossible to achieve in a lifetime.To put it bluntly, but very simple, the solution is: do a military Machiavelli once and for all.

It is the most important spiritual legacy of this Italian political thinker in the Renaissance[1].In the Middle Ages, this meant a break with the romantic, chivalrous and declining tradition of chivalry, using all possible means without restriction to achieve the goal. ] first), and also the origin of the clearest "transcendent thinking". [1] B. Russell said when talking about Machiavelli, "People are used to being shocked by him, and he is indeed shocking the world sometimes. However, if people can get rid of hypocrisy and hypocrisy like him, then, Many people can think like him... (in Machiavelli's view), if the end is considered good, then we must choose some adequate means to achieve it. The problem of means can be solved by pure science It should be dealt with according to the attitude, regardless of whether the purpose is good or evil." ("On Kings", Hunan People's Publishing House, 1987, P115-123)

[2] Han Feizi, who was born in the Warring States Period, is a master of Legalism.When speaking and doing things, the practical effect is the most important thing. The so-called "the one who speaks and does what he does is the one who is satisfied with the function", and there is no other purpose or limitation. (See "General History of Chinese Thought", Hou Wailu et al., People's Publishing House, 1957, P616) The premise of distinguishing things from each other is the existence of boundaries. In a world where everything is interdependent, boundaries have only relative meanings.The so-called transcendence refers to transcending all things that are called or can be understood as boundaries.Whether it is material, spiritual or technical; and whether it is called "limit", "limitation", "limitation", "boundary", "rule", "law", "limit" or even "taboo" .For war, it may be the boundary between battlefield and non-battlefield, weapon and non-weapon, military and non-military, state and non-state or supra-state, and perhaps technology, science, theory, Psychological, ethical, traditional, customary boundaries, etc.In short, it is all the boundaries that limit the war within a certain range.When we put forward the concept of transgression, the original intention is to firstly refer to the transcendence of thought, and secondly to refer to the choice of the most appropriate means (including extreme means) on the limit and boundary that needs and may be surpassed when taking action, rather than referring to always and everywhere. Extreme measures must be taken.For soldiers in the era of technological integration, the increase in facets in reality and the abundance of available resources (referring to all materialized and non-materialized resources) make them more difficult than Machia in terms of the constraints they face and the means of breaking through them. The environment in which Viri is located is much more.Therefore, the requirements for their thinking beyond limits are more thorough.

We said earlier that combos are the cocktail in the cups of war masters.But in previous wars, the combinations of weapons, means, formations, and strategies were all "limited" combinations in the military field. This kind of narrow combination is obviously not enough today.If you want to win today's or tomorrow's war and play with victory in your hands, you must "combine" all the war resources at your disposal, that is, the means of war; this is not enough, you must also follow the requirements of the "law of victory" To combine; this is still not enough, because the law of victory does not guarantee that the victory will fall into the basket, it also needs a good hand to pick it.This hand is "exceeding limits", which is to combine wars beyond all boundaries and in accordance with the requirements of the law of victory.In this way, we get a complete concept, a brand new name of tactics:

"Partially formal over-limit combo battle". supranational grouping Now, we seem to be facing a paradox again: theoretically speaking, transcending the limit should be no taboo, transcending everything; but in fact, infinite transcendence is impossible and impossible.Any transcendence can only be done within certain limits.That is to say, transgression does not mean infinity, but only an expanded "limitation", that is, beyond the inherent boundaries of a certain field and a certain direction, and combine opportunities and means in more fields and directions to achieve the established goals .

This is our definition of "unlimited combination warfare". As a method of warfare characterized by "beyond limit", its principle is to mobilize more means to solve problems on a larger scale than the problem itself.For example, when national security is threatened, instead of simply choosing country-to-country military confrontation, the crisis is resolved by means of "supra-national combination". Historically, the state has been the highest form of the security concept.For the Chinese, the country is even a big concept equivalent to the world.Today, countries in the sense of nationality or geography are just links in the chain of human society in the "global village".Modern states are increasingly influenced by regional and global supranational organizations such as the European Community, ASEAN, OPEC, APEC, IMF, World Bank, WTO and, most importantly, the United Nations .In addition, a large number of transnational organizations and various non-state organizations (such as multinational corporations, industry associations, Greenpeace, Olympic committees, religious institutions, terrorist organizations, hacker groups, etc.) are also influencing the direction of the country.These transnational, non-national and supranational organizations together constitute the emerging global power system [3].

[3] Alvin Toffler, in the book "Power Shift--Knowledge, Wealth and Violence on the Approach of the 21st Century", talked about "a new type of global organization" in a section, "We are seeing a sense of A major shift in power, from one nation or group of nations to a global gladiator".The so-called "global gladiators" refer to non-state entities, large and small, ranging from the European Community to multinational corporations.According to the statistics of the United Nations "1997 Investment Report", there are 44,000 parent companies of multinational companies and 280,000 subsidiaries and affiliated companies abroad. These multinational companies control 1/3 of the world's production and control the world. 70% of foreign direct investment, 2/3 of world trade and more than 70% of patents and other technology transfers. (Quoted from the third edition of "Guangming Daily" on December 27, 1998, Li Dalun's article "The Duality of Economic Globalization")

Perhaps not many people have noticed that the above-mentioned factors are leading us into a transitional period in which great power politics gives way and supranational politics.The main feature of this period is transition: many signs are emerging, many processes are beginning.National power as one type of subject and supranational, transnational, and non-state power as another type of subject, the question of who will dominate the ups and downs on the international stage is still unclear.On the one hand, major powers are still playing a leading role, especially comprehensive powers like the United States, economic powers like Japan and Germany, emerging powers like China, and declining powers like Russia are still trying to exert their own influence on the overall situation. On the other hand, far-sighted powers have begun to use transnational, transnational, and non-state forces to double their influence and achieve goals that cannot be achieved by their own strength.For example, the European Community unified by the euro is the latest and most typical case.This dynamic process has continued to this day, but it has just come out of its faltering stage and is far from over.It is only natural that the near-term direction and long-term prospects are uncertain.However, some signs are already showing a trend, that is: the era of winning or losing through national contests is slowly closing the door, and the era of using supranational means to solve problems and achieve goals on a stage larger than the country , is quietly opening the curtain [4].

[4] According to Brzezinski, several national groups will emerge in the 21st century, such as North American group; European group; East Asian group; South Asian group; Muslim group; Eurasian group.The struggle between these groups is the key to future conflict. (Chinese translation of "Out of Control; Global Chaos on the Eve of the 21st Century" "Out of Control and Chaos", China Social Sciences Press, P221).The growing role of the United Nations also reflects this trend. (See "The United Nations Towards the 21st Century", World Knowledge Publishing House) Based on this, we list "Super-National Combination" as one of the basic elements of Unlimited Combination Warfare.

In a world where politics, economy, ideology, technology, and culture are interpenetrated, and the Internet, cloning, Hollywood, Spice Girls, and the World Cup easily cross the boundaries marked by boundary markers, the desire to ensure security and seek interests in a purely national sense has been difficult to achieve.Only a fool like Saddam Hussein would realize his ambitions through naked territorial occupation.Facts have proved that this approach was obviously out of date at the end of the 20th century and was bound to fail.It is also pursuing national security and national interests. As a mature big country, the United States is much more shrewd than Iraq.Since the day they stepped onto the international stage, the Americans have plundered and plundered, and obtained many times more benefits from other countries than Iraq obtained from Kuwait. The reason for this is not only explained by "might makes right", but also It is not simply a matter of violating international norms or not.Because in all its overseas operations, the United States always strives to win the largest number of followers, lest it become a loner.Except for direct military actions against small countries like Grenada and Panama, in most cases, it seeks and realizes its own interests in a supranational way.On the issue of dealing with Iraq, the American approach is a very typical supranational combination.During the whole process, it worked up and down, making almost all the countries in the United Nations support its actions, making this world's number one international organization make a resolution that made it famous, and brought more than 30 countries into the discussion Iraqi coalition.After the war, it successfully organized an eight-year economic blockade against Iraq, and used weapons inspections to maintain continuous political and military pressure on Iraq, keeping it in a state of political isolation and economic distress for a long time. After the Gulf War, the tendency of supranational combination of war or conflict became more and more obvious.The closer it is to today, the more prominent this feature is, and the more frequently it becomes a means and is adopted by more countries.The formation of this tendency has a profound background of rapid turbulent changes in the international community in the past ten years.The integration of global economy, the internationalization of domestic politics, the networking of information resources, the frequent replacement of technology, the concealment of civilizational conflicts, and the strengthening of non-state organizations have brought as many conveniences as troubles to human society. This is why big countries and even some small and medium-sized Countries, all invariably aim at the problem-solving pointers to the reasons for the supranational combination [5]. [5] Organizations such as ASEAN and OAU have become or are becoming supranational organizations that cannot be ignored in resolving regional affairs. It is for this reason that more threats to modern states come from supranational forces rather than one or two specific states.There is no better way to deal with this kind of threat than to use supranational means.In fact, there is nothing new in ancient times, and the supranational combination is not a new continent.As early as the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period and the Peloponnesian War period, the combination of vertical and horizontal alliances has become the oldest and most classic method used by ancient Eastern and Western strategists to use supranational combination methods [6], and it is still true today. charm.Until the Gulf War, the Schwarzkopf-style supranational combination could still be said to be a modern version of the classical "alliance + coalition".If you have to draw a generation gap between ancient times and today, and find out the difference between them, it is that in the ancients, it was only a combination of countries and countries, not between supra-national, trans-national, or non-national organizations. Perpendicular, parallel and cross combinations [7].The emergence of these three forces that the ancients could not have imagined has revolutionized today's warfare from technical means to actual operation, except for the same principles. The brand-new model of "state + supranational + transnational + non-state" will fundamentally change the appearance and outcome of war, and even change the military nature of war which has been taken for granted since ancient times.This method of resolving conflicts or conducting wars not only uses national power but also combines super, trans, and non-national forces, we collectively call it supra-national combination.From the existing successful examples, it can be predicted that the supranational combination will be the most powerful weapon for a country to seek to achieve national security goals and strategic interests on a larger scale in the future [8]. [6] During the Warring States Period, "He Zong" (six countries united against Qin Dynasty) and "Lian Heng" (Qin alliance with one or several countries attacking other countries) were examples of the alliance between countries. ("Comments on Warring States Policy", Zhonghua Book Company, 1990, P4) [7] The contemporary supranational combination is not just the combination between state organizations and national organizations, it also includes the combination of state and transnational or even non-state organizations.In the financial crisis in Southeast Asia, we can see the tacit cooperation of some countries with the International Monetary Fund and hedge funds. [8] In his new book "The Grand Chessboard - The Primacy of the United States and Its Geostrategy", Brzezinski prescribes a new prescription for world security and establishes a "trans-Eurasian security system". With the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Russia, India and other countries as the core.Regardless of whether Brucell's prescription is effective or not, he at least pointed out a line of thought that is the same as ours, to solve national security issues on a larger scale.Carl Doe said, "International organizations are often seen as the best way to guide mankind out of the era of nation-states", and the primary task of integration is to "maintain peace". (See "International Relations Analysis", World Knowledge Press, P332) The United States, currently the only world-class power, is the country best at using supranational combinations as weapons.It never misses any opportunity to participate in international organizations related to US interests, or in other words, it always regards the actions of any international organizations as being closely related to US interests.Whether it is Europe, the Americas, Asia, and other regional or global international organizations, the United States must strive to be on the list for manipulation. The 1996 "US National Defense Report" was blunt: "In order to protect and realize the interests of the United States, the US government must have the ability to influence the policies and actions of other countries. This requires the United States to maintain its participation abroad, especially those that make the United States most Vital interests are at risk"[9].For example, on the issue of establishing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the founder, Australian Prime Minister Hawke, initially considered only Asian countries, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, but was immediately strongly opposed by President Bush, and then expanded to the United States and Canada.At the same time, in order to curb the momentum of Asia-Pacific economic cooperation, the United States tried its best to encourage some Asian countries to sign agreements with the North American Free Trade Area independently, which can be described as a double combination strategy. [9] US Secretary of Defense 1996 Fiscal Year "National Defense Report", Military Science Press, P5. What makes people feel secretive is the attitude and method of Americans in dealing with the Asian financial crisis.At the beginning of the turmoil, the United States quickly rejected Japan’s proposal to establish an Asian Monetary Fund, advocating the implementation of a conditional rescue plan through the International Monetary Fund, of which it is the major shareholder, in order to force Asian countries to accept the economic liberalization policy promoted by the United States.For example, when the International Monetary Fund provided South Korea with a loan of 57 billion U.S. dollars, the condition it put forward was to fully open the market, so that American capital had the opportunity to acquire Korean companies at an unreasonable reserve price.Such a blatant demand to open up or free up market space for developed countries led by the United States is almost a disguised form of economic occupation[10].If we combine this approach of the U.S. government with the financial attacks of Soros’s generation on Asian countries, the total amount of mutual funds with Americans has increased from 810 billion U.S. dollars to 5 trillion U.S. dollars in 10 years and is still increasing at a rate of 30 billion a month.[ 11], with Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Morgan Stanley lowering the credit ratings of Japan, Hong Kong and Malaysia at the most critical or delicate moment, and with Greenspan's response to the Hong Kong government's "hedge funds" will change Worry about the rules of the game is all connected with the Fed's exceptional bailout of the speculatively failed Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), the once loud "no" in Asia and the fading talk of the "Asian Century". When you wake up, you will find that the connection of all these is so ingenious and seamless [12].If they are combined consciously to attack the long-coveted target, wouldn't it be a successful combination of supranational organization + transnational organization + non-state organization?Although there is no direct evidence that the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve deliberately designed and used this powerful and subtle weapon, it can at least be said that certain actions were encouraged and tacitly approved by them in advance.It's just that the key to the question we want to discuss here is not whether the Americans have used it consciously, but whether it is feasible as a super weapon? [10] In the August 1998 issue of Japan's "Bunyi Shunqiu" monthly magazine, Shintaro Ishihara's article "New Asia Against Barbarians" argued that the various actions of the United States in this Asian financial crisis showed its strategic intention to attack Asia.Mr. "No"'s views are somewhat extreme, but they are still insightful. (See "Reference News", August 15-16, 1998) [11] See "Reference News" on September 29, 1998, page 11, reprinting an article from the US "Fortune" magazine. [12] There are not a few observers who hold the same view as Shintaro Ishihara. On July 16, Russia’s Tribune published an article by economic observer Konstantin Sorokin, “What role did the allies play in the Asian financial crisis?” " also talked about the same view. (See "Reference News" on August 15, 1998) The answer is yes. super domain combination Domain is a concept derived from the concept of territory to distinguish the scope of human activities.In this sense, the field of war is the definition of the scope of war.We propose that "supra-territorial combination" and "supra-national combination" are both abbreviations. To be precise, the four words "war action" should be added after them, so as to fully express the intent of such concepts.The reason for pointing this out is to limit the idea of ​​"super...combination", which is driven by transboundary thinking, to the scope of war and its related actions. "Super-field combination" is between the "supra-national combination" mentioned above and the "super-means combination" that will be discussed later.As much as it is in our discussion, it is indispensable for breakthrough thinking beyond limits.Just as an airplane can break through the sound barrier to fly at supersonic speeds, those who engage in war can only enter the free state of war thinking if they break through the limitations of their fields.Breaking the limits of thinking is the prerequisite for breaking the limits of action.If there is no breakthrough in thinking, even if there is a breakthrough in action with intuition, it will be difficult to achieve positive results.For example, the US military's "full-dimensional combat" theory is similar to our "super-domain combination" (the so-called full-dimensional means all domains), but because the US military's "full-dimensional combat" is more like the whim of a group of smart soldiers, Rather than being based on a radical breakthrough in thinking, this spark of thought that could lead to a military revolution was soon regrettably extinguished due to the obstacles that incomplete thinking inevitably faced.[13] . [13] In the U.S. Army today, "full dimensionality" is a concept limited to the military field, such as the principle of "full dimensionality protection" in the "2010 Joint Force Concept", which aims to strengthen the information protection of the U.S. military .In the view of General E. Wilson, commander of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, the "acquired army" capable of maneuvering around the world is the "full-dimensional force."It can be seen that the U.S. Army's "full-dimensional" thinking has lost its essence and left its name in vain. (See Joint Force Quarterly, Summer 1996) The expansion of the field of war is the inevitable result of the expansion and integration of human activities.People's understanding of this phenomenon has always been in a relatively lagging state.Although as far away as Cao GUI and as near as Collins, these visionaries have pointed out to varying degrees the mutual restraint relationship among various fields of war, but so far, for most people engaged in war, all non-military fields have been regarded as An accessory that must be subordinated to military needs in war.The narrow field of vision and narrow thinking limit the expansion of the battlefield and the change of tactics to one area.From Kutuzov's burning of Moscow, destroying most of the country, and dealing with Napoleon with a strategy of strengthening the wall and clearing the country; to the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the absolute military victory regardless of civilian casualties, and The strategies of "massive retaliation" and "guaranteed mutual destruction" have not broken through this pattern. It is time to rectify this fallacy.The great integration of technology has prepared interfaces for cross-interaction among the fields of politics, economy, military, culture, diplomacy, and religion. All of these make the concept of confining wars to the military sphere and measuring the intensity of wars by casualties increasingly obsolete.The war is transcending the realm of bloody killings, showing a trend of low casualties or even zero casualties but high intensity: This is a new type of warfare such as information warfare, financial warfare, and trade war, opening up a new space in the field of warfare.In this sense, there is no field that cannot be used for war, and there is almost no field that does not have the offensive form of war. On October 19, 1987, a U.S. naval vessel attacked an Iranian drilling platform in the Persian Gulf. The news reached the New York Stock Exchange, which immediately triggered the worst stock market crash in Wall Street history.This discolored "Black Monday" caused the US stock market to lose as much as US$560 billion in book value, which is equivalent to a net loss of France.After a few years, the stock market crash caused by military action and then the economic panic was repeated again. From 1995 to 1996, the Chinese mainland announced twice to test missiles and hold military exercises in the Taiwan Strait.When the bullet trail was cut, Taiwan's stock market fell in response, creating an avalanche-like chain reaction.Although the above two cases are not what we call super-domain combination, especially the former is a stupid act of shooting oneself in the foot, but its unexpected ending is enough to inspire our thinking: if we consciously combine two or Wouldn't it be more effective to combine more seemingly irrelevant fields into one method of tactics? From the perspective of beyond-limit thinking, "super-domain combination" is the combination of the battlefield.Every field is likely to become the dominant battlefield of future wars, just like the military field.And one of the purposes of the "super domain combination" is to consider, which domain to choose as the main battlefield is more beneficial to the realization of the war goal?Judging from the practice of the US-Iran confrontation, after the 42-day military operation of "Desert Storm", the military pressure + economic blockade + weapons inspection that lasted for 8 years is the tactics used by the United States to attack Iraq with a combination of super domains on the new battlefield. .Leaving aside the huge non-military damage caused by the economic blockade to Iraq, only the United Nations Special Commission on Weapons Inspection headed by Butler has inspected and destroyed weapons of mass destruction in a few years, and the blow to Iraq's military potential has already been hit. It greatly exceeded the sum of the results of the air bombing in the Gulf War. These events show that war is no longer a purely military action, and the trend and outcome of any war may be determined by non-military factors such as political factors, economic factors, diplomatic factors, cultural factors, and technological factors. or change.In the face of military and non-military conflicts that affect all corners of the world, we can only break through the various boundaries that have been established in the thinking mode, and turn all fields that are fully affected by the war into cards that are skillfully shuffled in our hands. Only by combining all war resources with unrestricted warfare methods can we have the chance to win. Ultra means combination When the two countries are at war and the two armies are fighting, is it necessary to use special means to launch psychological warfare against the family members of the enemy far behind [14]?When defending national financial security, can assassination methods be used to deal with financial speculators[15]?Can we use "surgical operations" to attack the sources of drugs or smuggled goods within the limit of not declaring war?In order to exert influence on the governments and parliaments of other countries, is it possible to establish a special lobby operation fund[16]?Is it still possible to use the method of purchasing or holding shares to turn other countries' newspapers and TVs into tools for media warfare against them[17]? [14] The U.S. Department of Defense has strengthened control over Internet military websites to prevent hostile forces from using military home addresses, welfare numbers, and credit card numbers to attack military personnel. [15] Since the British government allows its agents to assassinate the heads of government of countries identified as terrorists, if certain countries regard financial speculators who have caused devastating blows to their own economies as war criminals or terrorists and Is it justified to treat it in the same way? [16] The parliaments of representative countries cannot avoid being surrounded by outside groups. For example, the Jewish Organization and the Gun Association in the United States are some well-known outside groups. In fact, similar practices have existed as far back as ancient China. During the war, Liu Bang gave Chen Ping a lot of money just to defeat Xiang Yu outside the battlefield. [17] An article revealed that Soros manipulated Albania's political situation by controlling Albania's newspapers. In addition to the legitimacy of the use of means, that is, whether it conforms to the generally accepted ethical rules, another common feature of the above-mentioned problems is that they all involve the use of means beyond the country and beyond the domain, which is what we want to call "a combination of means". question.But to figure out what is a super-means and why you need a super-means, the first thing you need to figure out is-- What is means? The problem doesn't seem to be a problem at all.Everyone knows that means are methods and tools used to achieve goals.But if it is as big as a country or an army, or as small as a strategy or a weapon, they are all referred to as means in general, the problem is far from being so simple. The relativity of means is a problem that takes a lot of time. This relativity manifests itself in the fact that what may be a means at one level may become an end at another level.For supranational action, the state is the means; for state action, the army or other national forces are the means, and the state becomes the end; In the stacked Chinese boxes, each layer of means serves a higher purpose and at the same time becomes the purpose of a lower level of means. Regardless of the purpose, the complexity of the means lies in the fact that everything can be understood as a means from any angle and at any level. From a field perspective, military, political, diplomatic, economic, cultural, religious, psychological, and media fields can all be regarded as means; Exercises, arms control, arms embargo, military blockade, and the use of force are all military means of course; while economic aid, trade sanctions, diplomatic mediation, cultural infiltration, media propaganda, formulation and application of international rules, and use of UN resolutions, etc. , while belonging to different fields such as politics, economy, and diplomacy, they are increasingly used by politicians as paramilitary means. From the perspective of methods, philosophical methods, technical methods, mathematical methods, scientific methods, and artistic methods are all means that human beings use to benefit themselves and can also be used in wars.Like technology.Information technology, material technology, space technology, bioengineering technology, the emergence and development of each new technology is expanding the lineup of means; another example is mathematics, from the configuration of troops, the base of ammunition, the calculation of ballistics, the probability of killing, and the combat radius In the military terms such as explosive equivalent, mathematical methods are everywhere; in addition, philosophical, scientific, and artistic methods are also powerful means to support military wisdom and military operations. Called military philosophy, military science, and military art, Liddell Hart once defined the term strategy as "the art of using military means to achieve policy goals." It can be seen that means is a concept that covers a wide range, is rich in layers, and has overlapping functions, so it is difficult to grasp.Only by broadening the understanding of means from the perspective of vision, and understanding the truth that nothing can be a means, can we not be stretched and exhausted in the use of means. In 1978, when Iran occupied the U.S. embassy and took hostages, the U.S. initially resorted to military means rashly. After failure, the U.S. changed its tactics, first freezing Iran’s overseas assets, imposing an arms embargo, and supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. , Coupled with diplomatic negotiations, a multi-pronged approach finally resolved the crisis [18].This shows that in an unprecedentedly complicated world, the style and scope of application of means are constantly changing, and no matter how good a single means is, it will not be more advantageous than the combined use of multiple means.Therefore, the combination of super means becomes very necessary.It is a pity that there are not many countries that are conscious in this regard, but those non-state organizations that pursue various interests are trying to find a combination of various means.For example, in order to seize wealth, the Russian mafia combined assassination, kidnapping, and hacking into bank electronic systems; some terrorist organizations combined bombs, hostage-taking, and cyber attacks for political purposes; In order to fish in troubled waters in the financial market, they combined all speculative methods in the foreign exchange market, stock market, and futures market, and used public opinion to create momentum, inducing the gathering of "big macs" like Merrill Lynch, Gaocheng, and Morgan Stanley to join them. Join hands with [19] to form a huge market force and start thrilling financial wars one after another.Most of these means are not military in nature (although they are often tinged with violence), but the way they are used in combination has implications for how we can effectively use military and non-military means in warfare.Because today, the evaluation of the effectiveness of a means is not mainly based on the attributes of the means and whether it conforms to a certain ethical standard, but whether it conforms to a principle, that is, the principle of the best way to achieve the goal.As long as it conforms to this principle, it is the best method.Although other factors cannot be said to be completely negligible, they must be premised on being conducive to the realization of the goal.That is to say, what the super-means combination must surpass is nothing but the ethical standards or principles implied in the means itself.And this is far more difficult and complex than combining some means with others. [18] See Karl Doe's "Analysis of International Relations", World Knowledge Press, P272-273. [19] Barton Biggs, as a global strategy analyst of Morgan Stanley Holdings, is considered the most influential investment strategist in the world, because he is the president of this $30 billion company and holds 15 % of equity.Before the financial turmoil in Thailand and Hong Kong, he and his company made moves to guide speculators. (See "Chinese Social Sciences", No. 6, 1998, Song Yuhua and Xu Yilin's article "A Preliminary Study on the Laws of Contemporary International Capital Movement") Only by completing the transcendence of existing concepts can we get rid of taboos and enter the freedom of choice of means - the realm of transcendence.Because for us, it is not enough to achieve the goal through ready-made means, we also need to find out the best way to achieve the goal, that is, how to use the means correctly and effectively, in other words, how to consciously combine different means to create new means to achieve the goal.比如，在经济一体化时代，某个经济大国如果想打击它国经济，同时也打击其防务，完全可以不采用经济封锁、贸易制裁或军事威慑、武器禁运之类的现成手段，而只需调整本国的金融政策，以货币升值或贬值为主，组合以舆论造势、改变规则等手段，就足以使目标中的国家和地区出现金融动荡、经济危机，削弱其综合国力包括军力。从东南亚金融危机导致该地区军备竞赛热降温的事例中，即可看出这种可能性完全存在，虽说此次危机并非哪一大国有意改变本国币值所致。即使像中国这样的准全球性大国，目前也已具备了只要改变自身的经济政策，就可对世界经济造成冲击的能力。如果中国是个自私自利的国家，在1998年违背诺言，让人民币贬值的话，肯定就会使亚洲经济雪上加霜，同时也将诱发世界资本市场的激变，其结果就连依靠外国资本流入支撑本国经济景气的世界第一债务国美国，也必然受到经济重创，这样的结局肯定会胜过一次军事打击。 声气相通、利益相连的现实，使战争的外延日趋扩大，也使任何一个举足轻重的国家，都具备了多种而不仅仅只靠军事手段威胁他国的能力。单一手段在使用中将越来越收效甚微，多种手段并用的优势愈见凸显，这就为超手段组合并把这种组合运用到战争或准战争行动中敞开了大门。 超台阶组合 当一场战争成为一段战史，像钢水般逐渐冷却的战争过程，就会一点点凸现出来。从最初的、小规模的、局部的战斗，到由这些战斗前后左右拼接而成的战役，再由数个甚至更多的战役构成的战争，最后还可能由一场战争蔓延成一次洲际或世界性的大战……战争，就这样沿着一级级看不见的台阶走了过来，也许还将这样一级级台阶的走下去。每一级台阶上，都布满了呻吟的伤兵和阵亡者的尸体，布满了胜利者高扬的炮口和失败者丢弃的枪支，也布满了许多愚蠢的或睿智的计策、谋略和方案。如果我们从战史的最后一页，一章章地往前翻，就会发现，一切过程都是累积，一切结局都由累积而成。胜利是累积，失败也是累积。对交战双方而言，通向结局的道路是同一条，唯一的区别，是看你拾级而上，还是拾级而下。飞跃和突变，都发生在你踏上最后一级台阶的那一刻。 这似乎就是规律。 而规律是需要尊重的，对规律的违背或打破则须慎重。 问题是我们所想的，恰恰正是如何违背或打破这一规律。我们不认为所有的战争，都必须一级级循序渐进，直到累积出决定命运的"那一刻"。我们认为，"那一刻"是可以制造出来的。找到能够不断地制造而不是等待累积到那一刻的办法，并将它固定成一种战法，这就是我们要做的事情。 我们当然知道，一次战斗构不成一场战争，就像一名士兵构不成一支军队一样，但这并不是我们想说的问题。我们的问题是，如何用一种方法打破所有的台阶，并将这些台阶任意组接拼装，比如把一个战斗或战术级的行动，直接与战争或战略级的行动组合对接。如同把肢体、躯干和头颅任意拼接一样，使战争变成一条可以在所有环节上随机组合、亦可在任何方向上自由摆动的龙。 这个方法就是"超台阶组合"。台阶也是一种限制，与国家界限、领域界限和手段界限相同，都是超限组合战在实际运用时需要超越的界限。 赫尔曼·康恩曾把通向核战争的门槛分成若干级台阶，类似的台阶同样存在于其它样式的战争中。但如果真的按照康恩的思路走，就会发现，44级台阶的划分过于琐细且不便操作[20]，并由于更多的着眼于从战争的烈度去划分台阶，而缺少了对战争层级的实质性洞察。在我们看来，从战争的规模和与其对应的战法这两方面切入，战争台阶的划分便可以大大简化，分为四个层级就足够了。在这一点上，我们和美国某些军事分析家的看法基本一致，只是提法上有所不同。具体划分如下： [20]关于赫尔曼·康恩的《升级阶梯：概括的（或抽象的）说明》，可参阅卡尔·多伊《国际关系分析》，世界知识出版社，P234。美军则通常把战争活动分为三个等级：战略级；战役级；战术级。（见美国空军条令AFM1－1《美国空军航空航天基本理论》1992年版，军事科学出版社，P106－111） 大战－战策 战争－战略 战役－战艺 战斗－战术 第一级，"大战－战策级"。从规模上，是以超国家为上限、以国家为下限的军事和非军事战争行动。与之相对应的战法是"战策"，也就是柯林斯所谓之"大战略"。因这一级战法，主要涉及战争的政治策略，故我们名之为"战策"。 第二级，"战争－战略级"。国家级的军事行动包括这一级别上的非军事战争行动。与之对应的战法是"战略"，即国家的军事策略或战争策略。 第三级，"战役－战艺级"。从规模上低于战争，高于战斗的作战行动。此级别一直没有与之对应的战法称谓，通常套用"战役"概念，显然混淆了作战规模与作战方法的含义，故我们选用"战艺"一词为其冠名。取这一级作战比"略"低，比"术"高，需讲求作战艺术之意。 第四级，"战斗－战术级"。最基本规模的作战行动，与之对应的战法是"战术"。 一望可知，每一级作战规模的台阶上都有与之相应的作战方法。对于传统的军人来说，也许他们终身的课业，就是如何熟练操作这些战法，在所处的每个层级上打好每一仗。 而对于即将置身于下个世纪的军人们，仅止在固定的层级上操练这些战法，已显得远远不够。他们必须学会如何打乱这些台阶，去组合从超国家行动到具体战斗的所有要素，以赢得战争。这并非是一项不可完成的任务。说穿了很简单，作为一种试图把战策、战略、战艺、战术任意对接的方法，超台阶组合的原理，无非是角色互换或角色易位。如用某种非军事行动的战略手段，去配合一次战斗任务的完成；或用某种战术性手段，去实现战策级的目标。因为从战争的走势看，越来越显现出这样一种迹象：并不是哪一级的手段才能解决哪一级的问题。无论是四两拨千斤，还是杀鸡用牛刀，只要操作得好，都是可行的办法。 本·拉丹，仅用两车炸药这一纯战术级手段，就对美国国家利益构成了战略级的威胁；而美国人也只能通过对其进行战术级的报复行动，达到保障自身安全的战略级目标。再如，与以往战争中"人－机"组合是最小的作战单元，其作用一般不会超出战斗规模这一点不同，超限战中"人－机"组合，具备从战术级直至战策级多重跨度的攻击能力。一名黑客＋一只调制解调器，给敌方造成的毁损几乎不亚于一场战争。而由于具有跨台阶作战的广谱性和隐蔽性，这种单兵作战的方式很容易达成战略甚至战策级的效果。 这就是超台阶组合的要领和意义。 在以国家和超国家为主体的战争与非军事战争中，没有什么领域不能超越；没有什么手段不能用之于战争；也没有什么领域、手段相互间不能组合。战争行动对全球化趋势的适应就表现在一个"超"字上，这一个"超"字便足以以一应万。而我们所说的万法归一，就恰恰归在一个"超"字上。 需要再次指出，超限组合战，首先是思路，然后才是方法。