美国网络战司令部 American Network Warfare Command centralized cyberspace headquarters
Source: Sohu 2013-2-28 1728 中華人民共和國
美国网络战司令部：网络空间的集中司令部
2013-2-28 17:28 来源：搜狐网
摘要
网络空间及相关技术的空前迅速增长几乎已经影响了人类社会的方方面面，并开创了一个信息沟通比过去任何时候都迅捷的全新领域。认识到网络空间对国家安全影响的潜在后，美国国防部（DOD）于2010年通过合并原网络攻击部队和网络防御部队创建了美国网络战司令部（USCYBERCOM）。但是，这一转型的最初意图是让所有的网络战部队处于同一司令部之下，这样一种集中指挥结构是对地理作战指挥官（GCC）传统权威的一种挑战，因为传统的地理作战指挥官在他们的战场责任领域（AOR）内被授予了绝对的指挥权。当然，这一举措也引发了越来越多的争议，防御性网络战本质上需要一个长期、统一的努力，而进攻性网络战则截然不同，因为它们通常瞄准一个特定的责任区域，时间非常短暂、并且每次情况都截然不同。这就涉及到了地理作战指挥官在他们各自的责任区域内指挥进攻性网络行动时的指挥权问题。然而，在美国网络战司令部成立之前，这种指挥进攻性网络战的权力被分散在较松散的网络机构中，有时甚至还可能违反统一的指挥意图。然而，全面考虑到网络空间的基本特征，完全支持集中指挥控制网络空间的所有作战行动的概念。美国网络战司令部必须坚持集中控制国防部所有网络战行动，并通过协调嵌入在各个作战司令部中的作战单元来实现同步。
引言
网络空间是指利用电子和电磁频谱，通过网络化系统和相关物理基础设施来进行数据存储、修改和交换的领域1。
——《美国网络空间军事行动国家战略》
互联网及其相关技术的爆炸性增长远远地超过了历史上任何通信媒介的增长速度。在刚刚过去的十五年里，全球互联网的使用量已经从不到全球0.4％的人口（1995年有1600万用户）发展到超过全球30%的人口（2010年有20亿用户）。这种指数级的增长明确地表明了全球对互联网的依赖性在急剧增加，也表明了通信速度的飞速增长只能在网络空间中才能够实现。
当前，网络空间几乎影响了人类社会的方方面面。从商业和娱乐，到教育和政府，网络空间的互联性大大地提高了通信能力并几乎实现了实时通信。但伴随着这些优势接踵而来还有极大的网络安全危险性和脆弱性，因为在网络空间中，每个网络连接都为那些企图窃取信息、破坏数据或摧毁系统的人提供了一个潜在的开放缺口。这一情况关系到网络空间互联的每个个人和组织。但对于政府来讲，它的重要性甚至要比应对那些企图制造现实物理破坏和伤害民众行为的意义更大。特别是美国军方，越来越认识到网络空间行动对作战环境的潜在影响。美国国防部（DOD）在其2010年度的《四年防务审查报告》（QDR）中表示：“在21世纪，如果没有可靠、高效的信息资源、通信网络和有效的互联网络，现代部队根本无法有效地进行高技术战争。”这份份报告也透露，目前美国国防部在遍及全球的88个国家中运行着15000多个独立的计算机网络，连接着4000多个军事基础设施5。面对如此庞大和广泛的网络，这些国防部网络已经成为那些不需要采用传统战争形式来挑战美国军事力量的敌对国家的首选目标。
为了应对这种日益增长的网络安全威胁，并努力组织和规范网络空间训练与作战，美国国防部于2010年5月成立了美国网络司令部（缩写为USCYBERCOM或CYBERCOM）。这一新司令部成立的目的是“统一和协调美国在全球安全环境中的网络作战行动。”然而，这只是简单的概念阐述和理论探讨，重要的问题是如何在网络空间中更好地指挥和控制（C2）作战行动，同时还要处理好现实世界中不可避免的指挥和控制问题，这些问题可能会制约网络战司令部有效控制网络战行动的能力。为了解决这个问题，网络空间的三大特征必须着重考虑：一是网络空间的无界性，并且这种能力会同时影响多个不同地区的责任区域（AOR）；二是网络事件的瞬间性和网络响应的快速性，三是网络空间范围的广阔性和增长速度的迅猛性。一旦这些因素都得到了全面分析，就可以轻松发现，为了最有效地解决了网络空间的特殊因素和漏洞，美国网络战司令部必须能够完全集中控制国防部的所有网络战行动，并通过协调嵌入在各个作战司令部中的网络战机构来协调统一这些行动。
背景:从电报到网络战
当我最早接触“网络空间”这个单词时，它当时是非常正式的专业术语。似乎令人振奋实则言之无物。它当时也代表着某些意思，却没有真正的语言解释，甚至对我来说，我也只是在纸张上看到它8。
——威廉.吉布森
网络空间在被人类认识之前已经存在很久。按照定义，网络空间是在19世纪30年代伴随着第一份电报诞生，在随后的一个半世纪中，网络空间一直被用于无线电波通过大气来传输语音和数据信息。然而，网络空间的实际概念，直到1984年才被美国作家威廉?吉布森在他的小说《神经浪游者》中首次提出，他在作品中将网络空间描述为：“统一的幻想……用图形表示的数据从人类系统每一台计算机的储藏库中提取出来……不可思议地复杂。”当然，当时没有人能够预料到这个单词将来所代表的重要意义。短短三十年之后，网络空间已经不仅发展成为众所周知的广泛使用和快速交换信息的媒介，而且网络空间的自身领域也得到了社会的广泛认同。
在军事上，网络战并不是一个新概念。 1982年，美国卫星发现在西伯利亚中部发生了一起巨烈爆炸并引发火灾。美军最初猜想是苏联一个小型核设施发生爆炸，但很快就确认是苏联的天然气管道发生了事故。原因是天然气管道的压力监测系统因遭到了计算机病毒或者“逻辑炸弹”的攻击而产生了故障，这些计算机病毒是事先嵌入到天然气管道的计算机管理控制系统中。这种病毒导致了天然气管道的泵和阀门发生故障，致使系统压力过大，从而创造一个最“非同寻常的从太空中可以观察到无核剧烈爆炸。”虽然在这一事件中，计算机病毒并不是通过互联网嵌入的（实际上是在软件供应商的网站被嵌入的），这一事件被许多人看做为第一个有着意义重大的网络攻击案例。从那时起，网络空间能力就对所有的作战理论行动指导产生了极大的影响，并且目前已成为了战争理论的一个重要组成部分。现在的军事指挥官“几乎完全依赖网络空间技术来给决策者、指挥员和部队传输信息，并提供给作战指挥官前所未有的能力来观察、判断、决策和行动。”网络空间目前被广泛认同是军事斗争的一个现实领域，许多人也现在一直认为“网络空间是战争的第五空间，与空中、陆地、海洋和空间一并将成为未来战争的一个重要战场。”充分认清网络空间活动在未来国家安全中的重要意义，正是美国通过组建网络战司令部来统一、协调和精简国防部网络战能力的真正动因。
在2010年5月美国网络战司令部成立之前，美国国防部网络战能力被分解到多个不同的组织和服务机构中。从本质上讲，网络战能力主要分为网络进攻能力和网络防御能力。在网络进攻方面，网络战联合功能构成司令部（JFCC - NW）负责规划和执行网络战行动，“确保美国及其盟国在网络空间中的行动自由，并削弱对手在网络空间的行动自由，并使这种优势延伸到网络领域之外。”该司令部隶属于美国战略司令部（STRATCOM），由美国国家安全局（NSA）主任负责指挥，和美国国家安全局一并坐落在美国阿里兰州的米德堡军事基地。在网络防御方面，全球网络联合部队（JTF - GNO）负责“运行和维护全球信息栅格（GIG），以保证及时、安全的网络中心战能力，通过打破战略、战役和战术的严格界限，实现对国防部作战、情报和商业等方面的全谱支持”，或者简而言之，负责管理国防部网络并保护这些网络免受外部攻击。该机构也是战略司令部的一个次级司令部，指挥关系上却由国防信息系统局（DISA）主任指挥，该组织坐落在美国弗吉尼亚州的阿灵顿市的国防信息系统局总部。虽然这两个司令部都隶属于美国战略司令部，他们行政关系和地理位置却被分割开来，考虑到在网络空间中决策制定的时间短暂性和协调同步性要求，这就使有效地统一行动和协调动作变得异常艰难。这就是决定将这两个国防部网络战机构合二为一，组建网络战司令部的根本动因。
Rough Mandarin Chinese Translation:
American Network Warfare Command: centralized cyberspace headquarters
2013-2-28 17:28 Source: Sohu
Summary
Almost unprecedented rapid growth of network space and related technologies have affected every aspect of human society, and an information communication created a than ever quick new field. Recognize the potential of cyberspace national security after the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in 2010 through the merger of the original network attack troops and network defense forces to create a Network Warfare Command (USCYBERCOM). However, the original intent of this transformation is to allow all network warfare units in the same headquarters under such a centralized command structure is a challenge to the authority of the traditional geographic combatant commander (GCC), because the traditional geographic operational command official in the battlefield areas of responsibility (AOR) was granted absolute command. Of course, this initiative has also led to more and more controversial defensive network warfare is essentially a long-term, unified effort, offensive network warfare is very different, because they are usually aimed at a specific area of responsibility, time is very short-term, and each time the circumstances are very different. This relates to the geographic combatant commanders in their respective areas of responsibility within the command of offensive network operations command of the issues. However, before the establishment of the American Network Warfare Command, the command of the offensive network warfare power is dispersed in a loose network of institutions, sometimes also may be in violation of the unified command intent. However, fully taking into account the basic characteristics of cyberspace, fully support the concept of centralized command and control cyberspace operations. American Network Warfare Command must adhere to the centralized control of all network warfare operations of the Department of Defense, and embedded in the various combatant commands through the coordination of combat units to achieve synchronization.
Introduction
Cyberspace is the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to stored data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures, modify, and exchange field.
- " American cyberspace military operations in the national strategy
The explosive growth of the Internet and related technologies has far exceeded the growth rate of any communications medium in history. In just the past 15 years, the global Internet usage has grown from less than 0.4% of the world's population (in 1995 with 16 million users) the development of more than 30% of the world's population (20 million users in 2010). This exponential growth that the world's dependence on the Internet also showed a dramatic increase in the rapid increase in communication speed can be achieved only in cyberspace.
The current cyberspace affects almost every aspect of human society. From the business and entertainment, to education and government, network connectivity space greatly improve communication ability and almost real-time communication. But along with these advantages come one after another great network security risk and vulnerability, because each network connection in cyberspace for those who attempt to steal information, destroy data or destroy the system provides a potential open gap. This situation is related to cyberspace interconnected individuals and organizations. But for the government, its importance even than dealing with those who attempt to create the reality of physical destruction and harm people behavior more meaningful. In particular, the United States military, increasingly aware of the potential impact of the network space action combat environment. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report "(QDR), said:" In the 21st century, if not reliable, efficient information resources, communication networks and the Internet, modern forces can not high-tech war. "This report also disclosed that the U.S. Department of Defense to run in 88 countries worldwide with more than 15,000 separate computer networks, connected to more than 4000 military infrastructure 5. The face of such a large and extensive network, the Department of Defense network has become the target of choice for those who do not need to challenge the United States military forces in the form of traditional war hostile countries.
In order to deal with this growing threat to network security, and efforts to organize and standardize cyberspace training and combat in May 2010 , the U.S. Department of Defense established the U.S. Cyber Command (abbreviated as USCYBERCOM or CYBERCOM). Established for the purpose of the new headquarters of the unity and coordination of network operations in the United States in the global security environment. "However, this is simply the concept of elaboration and theoretical discussion, the important question is how to better command in cyberspace operations and control (C2), and also handle the command and control problems inevitable in the real world, these problems may restrict the Network Warfare Command's ability to effectively control the network warfare operations. To solve this problem, the three characteristics of cyberspace must focus to consider: First cyberspace unbounded, and this ability will also affect a number of different areas of responsibility area (AOR); two instant network events and network The rapidity of the response, is a broad range of cyberspace and the rapid growth rate. Once these factors have been a comprehensive analysis, we can easily find that the most effective solution to special factors and vulnerability of cyberspace, the American Network Warfare Command must be able to concentrate fully control all Department of Defense network warfare operations, and through the coordination of embedded network warfare institutions in various combatant commands to the harmonization of these actions.
Background: from the telegraph to the network warfare
When my first contact with the word "cyberspace", it was a very formal jargon. Actually saying nothing seems exciting. It was also representing some meaning, but there is no real language interpreter, even for me, and I just paper to see it.
- William Gibson
Cyberspace before being human knowledge has existed for a long time. Cyberspace, by definition, in the 1830s along with the birth of the first telegram, in the subsequent century and a half, cyberspace has been used for radio waves to transmit voice and data information through the atmosphere. However, the actual concept of cyberspace until 1984 was only U.S. writer William? Gibson in his novel neural wanderer, "first proposed, he works in cyberspace described as:" a unified fantasy ... graphically said data extracted from the vaults of the human system each computer ... incredibly complex. "Of course, there was no one could have predicted the significance of the word will represent. After just three decades, cyberspace has not only become a widely used and well-known medium for rapid exchange of information, and the field of cyberspace has also been widely recognized in society.
In the military, network warfare is not a new concept. In 1982, the U.S. satellite with giant strong explosion occurred in central Siberia and causes a fire. The U.S. military initially suspect that the explosion of a small Soviet nuclear facility, but it was soon recognized that the Soviet gas pipeline accident occurred. The reason is the pressure of the gas pipeline monitoring system computer virus or logic bomb "attack was a failure, these computer viruses prior embedded computer management control of the natural gas pipeline system. The virus causes a failure of pumps and valves of the gas pipeline, resulting in excessive system pressure, thereby creating one of the most unusual can be observed from space to non-nuclear violent explosions. "In this event, the computer virus embedded via the Internet is not (in fact, the software vendor's Web site is embedded), this event many see as the first with a significant network attack case. Since then, the ability of cyberspace had a tremendous impact on the operational theory of action guidance for war theory and has become an important part. Military commanders "almost entirely dependent on cyberspace technology to decision makers, commanders and troops to transmit information and to provide to the combatant commanders unprecedented ability to observe, judgment, decision-making and action." Cyberspace is now widely recognized is a real military struggle, many people have now been "cyberspace war's fifth space, air, land, sea and space and become an important battlefield in future wars." fully understand the network space activities future national security significance of what the true motivation through the formation of the Network Warfare Command, to unify, coordinate and streamline the Department of Defense network warfare capabilities.
Network Warfare Command was established in May 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense cyber warfare capabilities be broken down into a number of different organizations and service agencies. Essentially, cyber warfare capabilities into network attack capabilities and network defense capabilities. Constitute Command (JFCC - NW) is responsible for the planning and implementation of network warfare action in terms of network attack, network warfare, joint function, "to ensure the freedom of movement of the United States and its allies in cyberspace, and weaken the opponents of freedom of action in cyberspace and this advantage extends to networks outside the realm of "The command is part of the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in charge of directing by the director of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. National Security Council is located in the United States Ali Lanzhou together Fort Meade military base. In the area of network defense, global network of Joint Force (JTF - GNO) is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Global Information Grid (GIG), in order to ensure timely, secure, network-centric warfare capabilities by breaking strategic, operational, and tactical strict boundaries to achieve Department of Defense operations, intelligence, and commercial aspects of the full spectrum of support ", or in short, is responsible for the management of the Department of Defense network and protect the network from external attacks. The agency is also a secondary headquarters of the Strategic Command, command relationships, but commanded by the director of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the organization is located in the headquarters of the Defense Information Systems Agency in Arlington, Virginia, USA. Although the two headquarters are part of the U.S. Strategic Command, administrative relations and geographical location but was split off from decision-making in cyberspace brief period of time and coordination synchronization requirements, taking into account, which makes effective unified action and coordination of action has become extremely difficult. This is the decision of these two network war of Defense agencies into one, the fundamental cause of the formation of the Network Warfare Command.
美国网络战司令部：融合网络战能力
过去美国军事网络被松散的联合特遣部队延伸太远、太广，直到最近，网络力量才在地域上和制度上变得高效合理。
——美国国防部副部长威廉J.林恩
美国网络战司令部于2010年5月21日正式建立，是美国战略司令部的一个次级司令部。编配了464名现役军人和476名文职人员，这些人大多来自于上述两个被合并的网络机构。网络战司令部承担了“集中当前所有网络空间资源，创造当前组织所不具备的协调效果和统一作战行动来防御信息安全环境”的责任。国防部长罗伯特?盖茨在2009年6月23日部长备忘录中命令战略司令部司令“将联合司令部计划（UCP）的第十八条第三款规定的指挥网络空间特殊行动的权力移交给网络战司令部司令”。该备忘录还指出“战斗指挥员、各军种和国防部机构仍然继续服从美国战略司令部领导，保证美国网络战司令部负责运行和维护全球信息栅格”。即使联合司令部计划的第十八条第三款中对其核心地位没有进行详细的规定，盖茨部长的命令是非常明确的：网络战司令部要比其他国防部网络机构拥有绝对权力，而且国防部的所有其他机构必须服从网络战司令部的指挥。
然而，这种简单明确的表述在面对现实问题时就会变得含糊不清。虽然网络空间的特征似乎规定需要一个真正意义上的集中指挥模式，任何对手在网络空间中的战斗都是现实存在和在地理作战指挥官的责任区域中实施。这就产生了一个潜在的问题，地理作战指挥官能否被要求将他们对个人/集体设备的控制权让步给美国网络战司令部。这种非传统的指挥控制结构“挑战了地理作战指挥官的传统权力模式，并且将来可能会在指挥关系的确定方面与美国网络战司令部产生新的矛盾冲突。”因此，这是一个严重的问题，必须加以很好地协调解决，因为采用这种集中方式来对这类情况实施指挥控制似乎最合乎逻辑，但同时可能会阻止地理作战指挥官绝对控制其责任区域的能力。解决这一问题最关键有效的方法就是相对对手保持一种竞争优势，并不总是拘泥于那些通常阻碍西方的民主进程的政治、法律和等级程序。
网络空间的特征
互联网的是人类第一个自己创造但自己尚不能全面掌握的东西，是我们历过的在无政府状态下的最大实验。
——埃里克?施密特
在确定网络战司令部最合适的指挥和控制结构来管理国防部网络战时，网络空间的三个总体特征值得深入考虑：网络空间的无界性和它同时影响到不同地理责任区域的能力；网络事件的快速传播性和响应时间的迅捷性；网络空间范围的广阔性和增长速度的指数性。这三个领域进一步确定了这种集中控制网络战行动是非常必要和有效性。
无界性：
网络空间的本质是复杂和难以理解的。网络空间经常被形容为虚幻的、概念性的或想象的环境，似乎通常被人类认定是一个虚假想象的领域。然而在现实中，当考虑其真实本质时，网络空间事实上在物理方面可以被确定。网络空间只存在于那些所有‘包含’在网络空间中与其他物理对象相链接的物理对象中。如果没有计算机系统、处理器、存储设备、传输设备、电线、电缆和用于连接他们的其它媒介，网络空间将不复存在。与此同时，尽管上述构成网络空间的网络设备都是有着现实场所限制的物理对象，链接这些网络设备的实际数据传输都是由能量组成，这些能量很少关心“现实”世界中人为设定的网络边界或分界线。传输数据的能量传到哪里（无论是通过电线、电缆，还是空气），网络空间就延伸到哪里，只要另一端有一个物理芯片设备可以处理信息传输。此外，在网络空间通常使用的传输方法是分组交换，这种传输方式实质上将‘消息’分包成较小的数据分组，然后利用不同的传输介质沿不同的物理路径将这些分组传输到目的地。只有在所有的数据分组都到达其目的地时，这些数据才能在目的地重新组合成原来的消息。从本质上讲，一个通过网络空间的典型数据传输将有可能很自然地通过多个责任区域，不管它是中间点、始发地还是目的地。网络空间实际上没有分界线、局限或边界，并且可延伸到物理网络结构可以延伸到的任何地方。
网络空间的这种无界性使在网络空间中任何指挥控制行动的企图都变得异常复杂。某一特定责任区域的网络行动可能“瞄准”一个准确的责任区域或者另一个责任区域，然而与此同时，在这个过程中数据传输却无疑通过额外责任区域。另外，数据一旦发出，数据传输往往就不能被重新收回，并且达到其目的地后的传输结果也不能控制。“第二次和第三次网络攻击对不相关系统产生的影响有时甚至不可能预测或者反击”，很可能会影响其他无辜的受害者。在非常短暂的因特网历史中，计算机攻击能力在极短时间内泛滥发作的例子比比皆是。一个早期网络攻击案例发生在1988年，美国康奈尔大学的毕业生罗伯特?莫里斯设计了一个程序，其目的是作一个实验来测量互联网的网络规模。然而，这一程序很快地进行了自我复制，并且以难以想象的速度迅速传播开来，莫里斯发现自己成为（其后被定罪）编写互联网蠕虫病毒的第一人。最近在2001年，NIMDA病毒（ADMIN的反写）验证了网络攻击技术方面的巨大进步。 NIMDA病毒，实际上是计算机病毒和计算机蠕虫的一种组合，能以极快的速度蔓延，并采用多种方法试图感染计算机系统，直到它找到一种容许它进入系统的方法。“这种病毒从不存在到全国性蔓延仅用了短短的一小时，却持续了数天，”并迅速成为世界上发作最广泛的病毒“攻击了成千上万台计算机服务器和成百上千台个人电脑。”
虽然以上这两个事例清楚地表明了网络攻击漫无目的扩散趋势无法考虑网络地理边界和国界，一个与此相关有针对性的同时影响多个责任区域的网络攻击案例在2008年俄格冲突中可以看到。在这次网络冲突中，俄罗斯采用了拒绝服务式网络攻击，攻击了格鲁吉亚军队、政府、社会网站来破坏格鲁吉亚的指挥控制能力，并在社会民众中产生一种动荡不安的局面。
在这一事件中，俄罗斯成功采用了一种掩盖真实网络攻击源的方式，俄罗斯间接地通过多个世界各地的第三方服务器路由他们的网络攻击路线。特别值得一提的是，这一事件中涉及到一个网站“它属于德克萨斯州的一家公司，被用于攻击格鲁吉亚政府网站，而后又被非常“巧合”地重新部署到亚特兰大的一家公司。严格意义上讲，美国在这些网络攻击事件中也遭受了间接损害”。
Rough Mandarin Chinese Translation:
American Network Warfare Command converged network warfare capabilities:
Extends far past joint task force of U.S. military networks are loose, too wide, until recently, the network strength only in geographically and institutionally efficient and reasonable.
- U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn
American Network Warfare Command was formally established on May 21, 2010, is a secondary headquarters of the U.S. Strategic Command. The allocation of the 464 active duty military and 476 civilian personnel, most of these people from the above two institutions merged network. Network Warfare Command assumed responsibility to defend the information security environment "centralized cyberspace resources, creating the effect of organizations do not have the coordination and unified operations". Secretary of Defense Robert? Gates ministerial memorandum of June 23, 2009 Strategic Command "transfer of power to the provisions of Article 18 of the Joint Command Plan (UCP), the special operations command and cyberspace network Battle Command ". The memorandum also noted that combat commanders, the military services and Defense Department agencies continue to obey the leadership of the U.S. Strategic Command, to ensure that the United States Network Warfare Command is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Global Information Grid. Third paragraph of Article 18 of the Joint Command plans did not detail the provisions of its core position, Gates Minister of command is very clear: the Network Warfare Command than other Department of Defense agencies have absolute power, and all other agencies of the Department of Defense must obey the command of the Network Warfare Command.
However, this simple and clear representation becomes ambiguous face reality. Although the characteristics of cyberspace seems to require need centralized command mode in a real sense, any opponent in the battle in cyberspace that exists in reality and be implemented in the area of responsibility of the geographic combatant commanders. This creates a potential problem, the geographic combatant commanders cannot be asked to make concessions to the United States Network Warfare Command control over their personal / collective equipment . This non-traditional command and control structure "to challenge the traditional powers of the geographic combatant commanders, and in the future might Network Warfare Command and the United States in terms of command relationships determine new conflicts." Therefore, this is a serious problem must be well coordinated to solve, because the use of such a centralized approach to the implementation of the command and control of such cases seems to be the most logical, but at the same time geographic combatant commanders may prevent absolute control of its area of responsibility. The most critical and effective way to solve this problem is relatively opponents to maintain a competitive advantage, not always stick to the usually obstruct the democratic process of the Western political, legal and grade program.
Characteristics of cyberspace
The Internet is the first human created but not yet fully grasp something, our experience over the largest experiment in anarchy.
- Eric? Schmidt
Unbounded and it also affects the ability of different geographic areas of responsibility; networks in the most appropriate command and control structure to determine the Network Warfare Command to manage the Department of Defense network wartime, cyberspace three general characteristics worthy of further consideration: cyberspace the rapid dissemination and rapid response time of the event; broad range of cyberspace and the growth rate of the index. These three areas to further determine this centralized control network warfare action is necessary and effectiveness.
No Boundaries in Cyberspace:
The nature of cyberspace is complex and difficult to understand. Cyberspace is often described as illusory, conceptual or imagined environment seems to usually be identified by the human field is a false imagination. In reality, however, when considering its true nature, cyberspace the fact that in the physical aspect can be determined. Cyberspace exists only in all 'contains' physical objects linked with other physical objects in cyberspace. If you do not have a computer system, processor, storage equipment, transmission equipment, wire, cable and other media used to connect them, will cease to exist in cyberspace. At the same time, the above constitute cyberspace network equipment has a realistic place to limit the physical object, link these actual data transfer network equipment are composed of energy, these energy rarely concerned with artificially set in the world of "reality" network borders or boundaries. Transmission of data where the energy spread (either by wire, cable, or air), cyberspace extends to go, as long as the other end of the a physical chip device can handle the transmission of information. In addition, the transmission method is generally used in the network space to packet switching, this transmission mode is essentially a 'message' subcontractors into smaller data packets, and then use a different transmission medium along different physical paths to transmit these packets to the destination ground. Only in all the data packet arrives at its destination at the destination, these data can be reassembled into the original message. Essentially, a typical data transmission through cyberspace by more than one area of responsibility, whether it is the middle point of origin or destination. Cyberspace actually without dividing lines, limitations or boundaries, and extends to the physical network structure can be extended to any place.
Unbounded space network so that any attempt to command and control operations in cyberspace has become extremely complex. Network operations for a specific area of responsibility may be "targeting" a precise area of responsibility, or another area of responsibility, and at the same time, however, the data transfer in this process was undoubtedly through additional areas of responsibility. In addition, once the data issued data transmission often cannot be reclaimed, and cannot control the transmission results reached its destination. "The impact of the second and third network attacks on unrelated systems sometimes impossible to predict or counter, is likely to affect other innocent victims. In the very brief history of the Internet, the computer attack capability examples abound flooding attack in a very short period of time. An early network attack case occurred in 1988, Cornell University graduate Robert? Morris designed a program, which aims to make an experiment to measure the size of the Internet network. This procedure, however, quickly self-replication, and spread rapidly to an unimaginable speed, Morris found himself (later convicted) to write the first Internet worm. More recently, in 2001, NIMDA virus the (ADMIN anti-Write) verified the great progress of network attack techniques. NIMDA virus, is actually a combination of computer viruses and computer worms can spread at great speed, and using a variety of methods to try to infect the computer system until it finds a way to allow it to enter the system. "This virus never existed nationwide spread in just a short span of one hour, but it lasted a few days," and quickly became a world virus attack is the most widely attacked thousands of computer servers and hundreds thousands of personal computers. "
Although the above two examples clearly show that the network attack aimlessly diffusion trend can not consider the network geographic boundaries and borders, while a related targeted network attack case affect multiple areas of responsibility in the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict can be seen. This network conflict, Russia with a denial of service network attacks, attacked the Georgian army, government, social website to undermine Georgia's command and control capabilities, and produce a volatile situation in the society people.
In the event, Russia's successful adoption of a way to cover up the source of real network attacks, Russia indirectly through third-party servers around the world route network attack line. Is particularly worth mentioning is that the company involved in the incident to a website, "it belongs to a company in Texas, to be used to attack the Georgian government websites, and then very "coincidental" to redeploy to Atlanta Strictly speaking, the United States in these network attacks suffered indirect damage.
显然，这些例子明确地反映了网络空间的无界性如何导致多个责任区域同时受到影响，不仅包括通过众多网络路径发出的任意路由数据，而且也包括通过这些相同路由所做的故意操作。正如美国网络战司令部司令基思?亚历山大将军在上个月指出，“网络空间边界的缺乏意味着对一个地方的威胁也就是对所有地方的威胁，当然这也给我们提供了一个真正提高共享网络态势感知和帮助我们保护军事、政府和私人网站和数据的天赐良机。”将国防部指挥网络战的指挥权进行集中可能是我们消除网络空间无界性的最好办法。
速度：
除了网络空间的无界性支持国防部网络空间指挥控制权集中的需要，网络空间的速度也支持这一需要。毫无疑问，网络空间中网络行动极其迅速;行动如此之快，于是“网络速度”正在成为一个流行的口语。这种超常的网络速度不仅涉及到网络空间中数据在不同介质中以近光速的速度传输，而且涉及到数字设备在处理和存储数据时速度，按照摩尔定律，这种处理能力在过去几十年里几乎以指数速度在增长。数字设备的这种惊人速度在NIMDA病毒发作过程中表现的非常明显。虽然病毒在全球范围内的传播速度是惊人的，但是更为惊人的是病毒的自我复制速度。从传入互联网到使其发展成为迄今为止世界上传播最广泛的病毒仅仅只用了短短的22分钟。
如果要想清楚地了解军队数字通信设备处理能力的快速增长，只需要比较过去二十年间的两次伊拉克战争即可。“据报道，在1991年海湾战争中需要一个多小时发送的一条消息，在2003年伊拉克战争中只需不到一秒的时间。”这种简单的比较揭示了数据传输能力在过去二十年中所取得令人难以置信的进步，也暗示着这一能力在未来将取得更大的发展。
网络技术人员之间有一个普遍共识，进攻性网络战要比防御网络战有优势39。互联网的许多特点有利于网络攻击，包括“全球连通、脆弱的网络基础设施、缺乏网络攻击原因归属和可以随意选择攻击时间和地方的能力等。”这些优势，因为几乎是反互联网安全的特性，给网络攻击者比网络防御者一个更为明显的优势。美国国防部副部长威廉J.林恩在2010年9月版的《外交事物》上发表的一篇文章谈到这个问题，他表示：“互联网在设计之初就是为了加强协作和迅速扩展规模，技术创新的门槛设置的很低；安全性和身份管理当初并没有引起足够重视。正是由于这种结构性的原因，美国政府捍卫网络安全能力的发展总是落后于其对手利用美国网络漏洞的能力”林恩部长的评论着重从互联网内在属性方面强调了互联网的安全性，然而，他提出了一个所有网络防御者了需要共同面对的因素：速度。
攻击的有效性在很大程度上将取决于网络防御者的反应速度。网络攻击者拥有的所有优势都取决于他否能有足够的速度来超越网络防御者有效部署防御的能力。在这个问题上，林恩部长继续说，“网络战更像机动战，速度和灵活性是最重要的。”亚历山大将军也表达了对速度重要性的类似观点，他说“我们必须以网络速度来熟练操作和应对各种情况，充分利用自动化技术和自主决策技术”。
亚历山大将军的这一声明完全赞同林恩部长的观点，也揭露了制约网络环境速度的真正因素：人工输入。当建议需要采用“自动化技术、自主决策技术”时，亚历山大将军实际上表示需要减少人机交互和人工决策层次。网络空间事件的突发性几乎没有任何反应时间来进行人工决策，例如涉及到威胁的重要性，哪种行动方案可能最好，甚至在特殊情况下由谁负责等等。只有采用这种自动化的预先设置好的处理规则来消除这些人工层次，正如亚历山大建议，国防部必须跟上网络威胁的步伐。将国防部指挥控制网络战的指挥权集中是尽量减少人机交互和人工决策层的最好方式。
范围：
无论是现在还是未来，网络空间的重要意义都不可低估。正如前文的解释，网络空间的范围和增长速度都大大超过了过去的所有通信技术。最近，互联网用户已突破了20亿，预计这一数据到2015年将接近30亿。随着网络用户数量的增加，网络设备发送和接收数据的能力得到了增长，因此网络空间的“尺寸”也得到了扩展。对于美国网络战司令部来说，这次转型既提供了更加强大的功能和也提供了更多需要保护的网络漏洞。但也提供了更多的机会来通过统一的司令部最大限度地发挥各方力量来集中投资于自动化力量。
在运行和维护持续增长的网络基础设施方面缺少资源和技术，这影响了国防部网络的完整性和安全性。对网络资源的监督不力常常会导致不可避免的漏洞，例如未应用软件补丁、无人值守的网络防火墙和没有更新的防病毒软件。亚历山大将军在2011年3月向众议院小组委员提交的题为《出现的新威胁和能力》报告中表达了对这一问题的高度关注，他说：“我们发现，我们没有能力做到我们需要完成一切。说白了，我们的资源非常薄弱，网络危机很快就会压制我们的网络力量。”这种网络资源缺陷可以通过集中的网络战指挥控制能力来得到解决，这样可以最大限度地集中所有国防部网络力量，并将重复的功能、系统、培训等方面的浪费减少到最低限度。此外，由于网络能力的不断更新发展，紧跟尖端技术的步伐需要巨大的财政投入用于设备采购、更新和相关培训。集中网络战指挥控制能力将会使网络战司令部和国防部在收购、培训和执行过程中的因规模缩减而受益，特别是在与其他政府合作时能够占据主动。这样一种集中化得优势可以从近期的案例中得到证实，最近政府多个部门签订多个合同用于购买加密产品，涉及到国防部二十多个部门和二十多个其他政府机构。“这次集中购买是第一个（也是唯一一个）真正充分利用整个政府能力来实现了巨大的产品折扣，要比以前的总务管理局（GSA）定价要低90％～98％。”这就是一个加强现有网络机构中获得好处的有力证明，也是集中国防部指挥控制网络战指挥权的又一明显优势。
Rough Mandarin Chinese Translation:
Obviously, these examples clearly reflect the to how cyberspace is unbounded and results in more than one area of responsibility at the same time be affected, including not only the arbitrary routing data issued by many network path, but also including intentional operation made by these same route. As American Network Warfare Commander General Alexander pointed out that in the last month, and the lack of "cyberspace borders means that the threat of a place is the threat of all places, of course, this also gives us a truly improve the sharing network situational awareness, and help us to protect military, government and private websites and data godsend. "The command of the Ministry of Defence and network warfare focus is our best way to eliminate cyberspace unbounded.
Speed:
The need for centralized command and control over the Department of Defense cyberspace in addition to the network space unbounded support, the speed of cyberspace also support this need. There is no doubt that the network action in cyberspace extremely rapid; action is so fast, so network speed is becoming a popular spoken. This extraordinary speed of the network is not only related to cyberspace nearly the speed of light to transmit data in different media, but also the speed of digital devices in the data processing and storage, in accordance with Moore's Law, the processing power in the past few decades Almost is growing at an exponential rate. Digital device such astonishing speed NIMDA virus attack is very obvious. Although the speed of the spread of the virus worldwide is staggering, but even more shocking is the speed of self-replication of the virus. The development of the Internet to make it from the incoming become by far the world's most widely spread virus only just 22 minutes.
If it is to be a clear understanding of the rapid growth of the processing power of military digital communications equipment, need only compare the past two decades, the two Iraq war can be. "It is reported that, in the 1991 Gulf War, requires more than an hour to send a message takes less than a second time in the war in Iraq in 2003." This simple comparison reveals the data transmission capacity in the past two decades made incredible progress, but also implies the ability to achieve greater development in the future.
There is a general consensus between the network technicians, offensive network warfare than the defensive network warfare advantage 39. Many of the characteristics of the Internet is conducive to network attacks, including global connectivity, the fragile network infrastructure, lack of network attack attribution and can choose the ability to attack time and place. "These advantages, because almost anti-Internet Security features than the network defender a more obvious advantage to network attacks. U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn, an article published in the September 2010 edition of the "foreign things" Concerning this question, he said: "The Internet in the beginning of the design is to enhance collaboration and rapid expansion of the scale, set the threshold of technological innovation is very low; security and identity management had not attracted sufficient attention. precisely because of structural reasons, the U.S. government to defend the development of the capacity of the network security always lagged behind its rival U.S. network vulnerabilities ability Lynn Minister's comments focused on the intrinsic properties of the Internet emphasizes the security of the Internet, however, he proposed a network defenders need to face factors: speed.
The effectiveness of the attack will depend largely on the speed of response of the network defender. Have all the advantages of the network attacker depends on whether it has enough speed to go beyond network defender's ability to effectively deploy the defense. In this issue, Lynn Minister went on to say, "network warfare more like maneuver warfare, speed and flexibility are the most important." General Alexander also expressed similar views on the importance of speed, he said, "we have to network speed to manipulate and respond to a variety of situations, and take full advantage of automation technology and independent decision-making techniques.
The General Alexander statements fully endorsed the view of the Minister of Lynn, also exposed the real factors restricting the speed of the network environment: labor input. Proposal automation technology, autonomous decision-making technology ", General Alexander actually needs to reduce human-computer interaction and artificial decision-making level. Cyberspace event of sudden almost no reaction time to a manual decision-making, such as it comes to the importance of the threat, what course of action may be the best, even in exceptional circumstances that is responsible and so on. Pre-set only using this automated processing rules to eliminate these artificial level, as Alexander recommended that the Department of Defense must keep up with cyber threats pace. Centralized command network warfare command and control of the Department of Defense is the best way to minimize the human-computer interaction and artificial decision-making.
Range:
Either now or in the future, the significance of the network space cannot be underestimated. As previously interpretation of the scope and growth rate of the network space greatly exceeds all communication technology. Recently, Internet users has exceeded 20 million is expected that this data will be close to 30 billion by 2015. With the increase in the number of network users, network devices to send and receive data growth, the "size" of cyberspace has also been extended. For American Network Warfare Command, this transformation provides more powerful features and also provides a more in need of protection network vulnerabilities. But also provide more opportunities through unified Command to maximize all forces to focus on investing in automation force.
In terms of operation and maintenance of the continued growth of the network infrastructure, lack of resources and technology, which affect the integrity and security of the Department of Defense network? Ineffective oversight of the network resources often lead to the inevitable vulnerabilities, such as application software patches, the unattended network firewall and no anti-virus software updated. General Alexander expressed in the report submitted to the House of Representatives Subcommittee in March 2011, entitled "the emergence of new threats and the ability to" high degree of concern on this issue, he said: "We found that we cannot afford to do what we need to complete all that white, our resources very weak, and the network crisis will soon be to suppress the power of our network. "this network resource defects can be resolved through a centralized network warfare command and control capability, so you can maximize concentration of all defense Ministry of power of the Internet, and duplicate functions, systems, training and other aspects of waste is reduced to a minimum. In addition, due to the constantly updated development of the network capacity, keeping up the pace of state-of-the-art technology requires huge financial input for the procurement of equipment, updates and training. Network Warfare Command and the Department of Defense the centralized network warfare command and control capability will benefit due to downsizing in the acquisition, training and implementation process, especially in cooperation with other governments to take the initiative. Such a centralized advantage can be confirmed from the recent case, several government departments recently signed multiple contracts for the purchase of encryption products, it comes to the Department of Defense over 20 departments and more than twenty other government agencies. "The focus on the purchase is the first (and only one) really make full use of the capacity of the Government as a whole to achieve a great product discounts, pricing to be 90% to 98% lower than before the General Services Administration (GSA)." This is proof of a strengthening existing networks, institutions benefit, but also sets the the China Defense Department command and control network warfare command another obvious advantage.
反对观点：分散网络攻击的指挥控制
我们必须以网络速度来熟练操作和应对各种情况，充分利用自动化技术和自主决策技术。
——基思?亚历山大将军，美国网络战司令部司令
正如前面讨论，集中指挥和控制观点有许多明显优势，有人会说，这并不是未来管理军方网络战的最佳方式。当然，有越来越多的人认为网络防御行动本质上需要集中控制模式，但是网络进攻行动并不适合这种情形。防御整个国防部网络需要一个集中、长期、统一的努力，网络攻击行动则与此完全不同，这种行为经常是有针对性的、短暂的，并且每种情况都截然不同的。网络攻击目标事实上存在某一特定的地理位置上，因此落实到某一地理作战指挥官的责任区域。这将导致地理作战指挥官必须较好地认识和理解每一种情况的特殊性和独特要求，因此应该有最终的决权，决定在他们自己责任区域内如何进行网络攻击行动。另外，随着网络武器的发展，这些武器的功能改进必须更好地控制和减少二次效应，因为这些二次效应可能蔓延到其他责任区域。这种复杂的情形在最近针对伊朗核计划的Stuxnet病毒中出现。制造这种“重要的限制型恶意软件”的目的是针对伊朗铀浓缩设施的控制系统，同时严格限制间接影响。这种病毒设计的目的是“限制其传播.......使它停留在目标设施内。”这个复杂病毒几乎完全实现其设计目的，因为“据报道，该病毒在国家核设施中蛰伏了多年”，并没有任何明显的二次破坏报告。目前网络武器的这种有效性和可控性暗示网络武器将来在这方面还会取得更大的发展，在未来能实现更长时间的控制，进一步支持地理作战指挥官在其责任区域组织攻击性网络行动的权力。
虽然上述争论把握了网络战的优点，但仍然需要对网络攻击活动进行全球性的协调。尽管，事实上地理作战指挥官显然是认识其责任区域内独特因素和特殊情行的最佳人选，网络领域本质上需要一个只能来自一个司令部集中控制的协调同步。复杂网络武器，例如Stuxnet，投入了大量的时间和资源用于开发，但有一个非常短暂的有效寿命（通常是一次性使用），因为一旦这些武器投入使用，对手会就很快做出反应并进行快速防御。50另外，将来在发展网络武器过程中可能会在控制病毒无意影响方面得到更多改进，网络行动的无界性依然存在，因为互联网上的数据任意路由的传输方式既无法避免也不可忽视。
将网络进攻与防御分开可能给予地理作战指挥官在进攻性网络行动中的绝对权威，这些优势反映在美国网络战司令部成立之前在分散结构中。恢复原来的指挥控制结构可能违背了创建美国网络战司令部的初衷，也否定了国防部合并进攻性和防御性网络组织所带来的好处。网络战司令部必须集中控制美国国防部网络战行动，不管是进攻还是防御。
结论及建议
网络司令部的核心是将情报、进攻和防御集中在一个部门下。
——美国国防部副部长J.林恩
网络空间的空前快速增长几乎影响人类社会的方方面面，并开创了一个信息沟通比以往任何时候都更加迅捷的崭新领域。认识到网络空间对国家安全带来的潜在影响，国防部创建美国网络战司令部的目的是“同步和协调网络作战效果。”但是，虽然成立这一机构目的是使所有的网络力量统一集中于一个司令部之下，这也影响了传统的指挥结构，即授予地理作战指挥官在他们责任区域内的绝对指挥权。但是，一旦被充分地认识到网络空间的基本特征，这就非常容易理解，背离这种传统的授权模式不仅是必要，而且也是要比对手在网络空间中保持优势的需要。最后，提出以下三点建议：
美国网络战司令部必须保持对美国在网络空间中所有作战行动的集中控制，不管是进攻还是防御。为了满足其他作战司令部，尤其是地理作战指挥官的需要，应当在每个作战司令部的总部嵌入协调机构来协调美国网络战司令部在网络空间中行动与地理作战指挥官在传统作战领域的行动。这些协调组织必须归属美国网络战司令部指挥，但准予与作战司令部司令直接联系。
美国网络战司令部应发展成为一个完整的作战司令部。将网络战司令部建成一个下级司令部，而非作战司令部一样需要花费大量时间和精力制定一个完整的作战命令，“减少先前努力来发展一个下级司令部…更加迅速地实现国防部在统一的全谱网络战能力中的直接目标…但是相对于一个完整的作战司令部，需要缩减结构、使命和职权。”虽然战略司令部司令已经将组织网络战行动的权力完全授予了美国网络战司令部司令，这种合法性和影响就像地理作战指挥官只得到了作战司令部司令地位，而没有真正成为一名名副其实地理作战指挥官。
美国网络战司令部应该被授予绝对的权威，类似于美国特种作战司令部。这将使网络司令部“统一和简化军事网络空间能力的获取”，并充分发挥国防部的资金优势。
Rough Mandarin Chinese Translation:
Command and control of the opposing point of view: a decentralized network attacks
Proficiency in network speed, we must respond to various situations, and take full advantage of automation technology and autonomous decision-making technologies.
- Keith? General Alexander, American Network Warfare Command
As discussed earlier, the central command and control point of view, there are many obvious advantages, some people will say, this is not the future management of the military the best way to network warfare. Of course, there are more and more people need to think the network defense action essentially centralized control mode network offensive operations are not suitable for this situation. Defense throughout the Department of Defense network needs to be a central, long-term, unified effort, network attacks with completely different, this behavior is often targeted, short-lived, and in each case are very different. Network target is in fact a particular location, therefore the implementation of the area of responsibility of a geographic combatant commander. This will lead to the geographic combatant commanders must better awareness and understanding of the special and unique requirements of each case, and therefore should have the right to make final decision, decide how to network attacks within their own area of responsibility. In addition, with the development of network weapons, these weapons function improved to better control and reduce the secondary effects, because these secondary effects could spread to other areas of responsibility. Such a complex situation in the Stuxnet virus against Iran’s nuclear program. The purpose of making this important limitations malware "control systems for Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, while strictly limiting indirect impact. The purpose of this virus designed to "limit its spread ....... so that it stays in the target facility." This complex virus almost completely achieves its designed purpose, "According to reports, the virus is dormant in the national nuclear facilities for many years, and without any significant secondary damage report. This network weapons effectiveness and controlled of sexually suggestive networks weapons in the future in this regard will achieve greater development in the future to achieve longer control, and further support the organization of the geographic combatant commanders in their areas of responsibility offensive the power of the network action.
Although the above controversy grasp the advantages of network warfare, but still need global coordination of network attack activities. Despite, in fact, the geographic combatant commanders apparently is the best person to understand the unique factors within the area of responsibility and the special circumstances row, the nature of the network area can only come from a the Command centralized control coordination synchronization. Complex network of weapons, such as Stuxnet, has invested a lot of time and resources for the development, but there is a very short useful life (usually one-time use), because once these weapons are put into use, the opponent will quickly respond and Quick defense. 50 In addition, in the process of developing cyber weapon in the future may be in the control virus is not intended to affect more improvement action; the topography of the network is boundary less yet still exists, because any route of transmission of data on the Internet, it cannot avoid also cannot be ignored.
The separate network attack and defense may give the absolute authority of the geographic combatant commanders in offensive network operations, these advantages are reflected in the American Network Warfare Command, before the establishment of the decentralized structure. Back the command and control structure may be contrary to the original intention to create American Network Warfare Command, also denied the benefits brought by the Department of Defense combined offensive and defensive network organization. Network Warfare Command must be centralized control of the U.S. Department of Defense network warfare operations, whether offensive or defensive.
Conclusions and recommendations
The core of the network Command intelligence, offensive and defensive concentrated in one department.
- J. Lynn, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Unprecedented rapid growth of cyberspace affects almost every aspect of human society, and creating a new information communication more rapid than ever. Aware of the potential impact of cyberspace on national security, the Department of Defense created the U.S. The purpose of the Network Warfare Command synchronization and coordination is designed to maximize network operational effectiveness. "However, although the establishment of this institution all the centralized power of the Internet to a headquarters, which also affected the traditional command structure that is granted to the absolute command of the geographic combatant commanders in their area of responsibility. However, once they are fully aware of the basic features of cyberspace, which is very easy to understand, to deviate from the traditional licensing model is not only necessary, but also than the opponents need to maintain our edge in cyberspace. Finally, we asked the following three suggestions:
American Network Warfare Command must maintain centralized control of all operations in the United States in cyberspace, whether offensive or defensive. Geographic combatant commanders to meet other combatant commands should be embedded in each Operations Command headquarters coordinating body for American Network Warfare Command to coordinate action in cyberspace with the geographic combatant commanders in the field of traditional combat action. These coordinating organizations must be attributed to the U.S. Command Network Warfare Command, but granted direct contact Operations Command.
American Network Warfare Command should be developed into a full combatant command. Network Warfare Command into a subordinate headquarters, rather than, like the need to spend a lot of time and effort to develop a complete operational command Combat Command, "Reducing the previous efforts to develop a subordinate headquarters ... more quickly achieve the Department of Defense in a unified cyber warfare capabilities in the full spectrum of direct target ... but relative to a complete Operations Command, need to reduce the structure, mandate and terms of reference.” Strategic Command has the powers of the organization's network warfare operations completely granted American Network Warfare Command commander, legitimacy and influence only get like geographic combatant commanders Combat Command commander position, but did not really become a veritable geographic combatant commander.
American Network Warfare Command should be granted absolute authority, similar to the U.S. Special Operations Command. This will make the Cyber Command harmonization and simplification of military cyberspace capabilities Get and give full play to the advantage of the Department of Defense funds.
http://observe.chinaiiss.com/html/20132/28/a5bb75.html