窮小子冷眼輯

【蔡英文說想想】－
【真命天子/台灣窮小子-中國超限戰戰術破解】

DECIPHERABLE TACTIS -

THE P.R.C. COLONELS ARGUE THE UNRESTRICTED WARFARE

POSTED BY 台灣窮小子 / ORDAINED Tsai Ing-wen BY THE SON OF HEAVEN
MARCH 4 2015

Why the PRC's colonels argue that battle is in an instant a myriad changes , and despite that it does not approve ?

According with the explanations of the Unrestricted warfare of the P.R.C. , indeed , the age-old of history and culture have impacted the

comprehension of warfare , in particular , they overlooked political transformation , scientific and technological developments.

Indeed , the nature of global warfare has never changed , or characteristic warfare remained in age-old of history and culture.

In other words , the Unrestricted warfare of the P.R.C. just insists on an asymmetric tactical deployment ,

but is not how we establish the doctrinal concept of warfare , develop and deploy National military system and force.

Especially , the significant implications for how we prove the operation of Nationasl military forces.

In other words , many decades of National Civil War forces are attacking likelihood of future ; so that is why make many people to question whether

China understand what warfare is ; and Ending of history is to ensure the critical political stability , and National partnership in the China.

In turn , how China prove the operation of military forces to National , regional ,even Global environment ;

and what the model of the significant implications they are?

Indeed , the PRC's colonels argue the Unrestricted Warfare , which still plagiarizes from the doctrinal concept of warfare of the United States , but

they overlooked it was just a fundamental doctrine ;

especially , the China is still poor , and lacking of understanding of Ending of history ,so they can use it in the China.

In addition to this doctrinal concept of warfare is not necessarily identified by the United States ;

rightfully so , the PRC's colonels think that it is just battle preference , and ignored mobilizable readiness.

Put simply , their concern are that violent , interactive , and political history and culture.

In fact , the Unrestricted warfare is not a superiority of the United States , only the Americans knew ;

in turn , deeper and clear thinking of Ending of history remains a superiority of the Unrestricted warfare.

Put simply , warfare for the Americans' conventional force is no longer about operating armed force to force the adversary to surrender to the will of the United States.

In turn , the Americans' conventional force is more conforming to the way of the Sun Tzu’s thinking ,

which is using doom and non-doom , military and nonmilitary ,

tactical deployemtnts to force the adversary to accept the core interests of the United States.

As the Americans' conventional force success can more or less re-wrote history , or changed warfare.

While the Americans did not definitely explain , but the Americans' the doctrinal concept of warfare shows that something about doctrinal concept

of warfare has changed , and that goes beyond tactical means.

Put simply , the R.O.C. National Defense University , Mr 洪榮一 has said that " the signature of the National style of warfare." , in other words , military force may be better used to establish and encourage National will.

Another an argument is to the R.O.C. former Defense secretary Mr.楊念祖 has said " decisive battles".

Generally speaking , the definition of warfare is to let military force as just intensifying National and people will - to gaining identifiability of core

interests ; and End means that national power can be employed in warfare against an adversary , rather than history and culture.

For instance , the P.R.C. colonels have misled the U.S. counterterrorism-deployment which just as National terrorist warfare ,

anti-network warfare ,and anti- financial warfare , indeed , this only highlight their theory-point which can be jointed in endless to form various model of joint operation.

Obviously , warfare was not being fired off by violence, which as is usually as a fundamental feature of fighting against history and culture.

Therefore , Ending of history shows a doctrine of ending war ; that it changes on our conventional conceptions associated with war.

Put simply , partnership , victory and defeat are being undertaken by us and our pals ,

and another is to partners do not refer completely to Country.

In the end , the P.R.C. colonels think that warfare is violent , interactive , and political history and culture ,

so , imposing will of history and culture mark core interests of political status and transformation.

Therefore , by through their understanding of disputation of warfare the such they did , and distinctly articulated about core interests of warfare.

But It is not clear if this Unrestricted warfare whether counts as a change ,or not ;

I think that given history and culture with violence they will lead closing association with violent conflict.

That is history and culture problem ; and it canot directly deal with it whether they are right because history and culture are warfare.

"BIG WORDS" of history and culture can comprehensively be to prove acts of aggression to military activity.

As the Unrestricted warfare of the PRC has increased violent conflict , in particular , understanding of history and culture will not be sensible.

台灣窮小子 , the ideas stated here are mine own and do not represent the R.O.C. Defense Department ,

or just ORDAINED Tsai Ing-wen BY THE SON OF HEAVEN.

戰術破解-中華人民共和國上校說/無限制作戰

POSTED BY 台灣窮小子 / ORDAINED Tsai Ing-wen BY THE SON OF HEAVEN
MARCH 4 2015

為什麼中華人民共和國上校認為戰爭是瞬息萬變，即使，不同意？

端視中國超限戰的說明，其實是古老的歷史與文化，已經影響戰爭理解；

特別是，忽略科學與技術發展，政治轉型！

其實，全球戰爭性質沒有改變，或是戰爭性格仍然是在古老的歷史與文化；

換句話說，中國超限戰僅是強調不對稱性戰術部署，

而不是如何建構，我們的戰爭學理理念，發展與部署國家軍事系統與力量！

尤其是，如何證明，運用國家軍事力量的重要策略定義！

換句話說，幾十年的國家內戰勢力，打擊未來的可能性，導致許多人懷疑中國，是否了解什麼是戰爭？

所以，終結歷史，確保關鍵性中國的政治穩定與國家夥伴關係！

另言之，中國，如何證明使用軍事力量對國家，區域，甚至，全球環境？

它具有甚麼模式的重要策略定義？

其實，中華人民共和國上校認為超限戰，還是抄襲來自美國的戰爭學理；

但忽略它僅是一個基礎學理；

特別是，中國貧窮，缺乏終結歷史的理解，所以，他們能夠運用在中國！

而且，這類戰爭學理不一定是美國認同，

理所當然的是，中華人民共和國上校的思考，僅是戰鬥優先權，而忽略作戰準備！

簡單來說，他們的關注是歷史與文化的暴力，互動與政治！

事實上，無限制作戰是不是美國的優勢，只有美國人知道；

另言之，深刻的，清晰的終結歷史思維才是無限制作戰的優勢！

簡單來說，戰爭對美國傳統性武力來說，不再是操作武力迫使敵人服從美國的意志，

另言之，美國傳統性武力更適應孫子兵法的思維路徑；

運用毀滅與非毀滅，軍事和非軍事的戰術部署，迫使敵人接受美國的核心利益！

是以美國傳統性武力的成功，或多或少能夠改寫歷史，或改變戰爭！

雖然，美國並沒有明確地表達，但是美國的戰爭學理，說明有些關於戰爭學理已經改變，並超越戰術手段！

簡單來說，中華民國國防大學洪榮一先生曾經說過:＂戰爭的特徵是國家風格＂；

換句話說，軍事力量可以更好地用來建構與鼓勵國家意志！

另一個說法是中華民國前國防部長楊念祖先生說：＂決戰＂！

總的來說，戰爭的定義是把軍事力量作為強化國家與民眾意志，取得認同的核心利益；

終結意味著能夠在戰爭用來對付敵人的國家力量，而不是歷史與文化！

舉例來說，中華人民共和國上校誤導美國反恐部署，以作為中華人民共和國的國家反恐，反網絡與反金融戰；

其實，這僅是他們強調他們自己的理論點，能夠在無限制作戰狀態，建立各類型的聯合作戰！

平心而論，戰爭並不是暴力所引爆，通常是反對歴史與文化的基本性格！

此外，終結歷史出現結束戰爭的一個學理，改變我們與戰爭傳統觀念；

簡單來說，夥伴關係，勝利和失敗是由我們與夥伴共同地承擔；

另外是，夥伴不完全是說國家！

總之，中華人民共和國上校認為戰爭是歷史與文化的暴力，互動與政治；

所以，強加歷史與文化的意志，以標誌核心利益的政治地位與轉變！

因此，他們做了這樣的認識，透過擴大爭議，清楚地闡述戰爭的核心利益！

但是，還不清楚，如果這種無限制作戰會不會產生改變？

我認為，有鑑於暴力歷史與文化，可能導致密切相關的暴力衝突！

這是一個歴史與文化問題，它不能直接解決，他們是不是正確的；

因為歷史與文化就是戰爭！

歷史與文化的唬爛可以讓人相信，證明侵略行為是軍事行動！

是以中華人民共和國的"超限戰"，只會增加暴力衝突；

特別是歷史與文化的理解不會是有道理！

台灣窮小子，這裡所說的想法僅是我自己的，並不代表中華民國國防部，

或僅是蔡英文的真命天子！