美國政要第17課
Modern Joint Operations
--Interview with the Professor of National Defense University，Col.Thomas E.Smith 訪美國國防大學教授托馬斯•史密斯上校
MR.CHEN BOJIANG: What is the defining concept or the exact meaning of Joint Operation1? What is the difference between Joint Operation and Multi Services and Arms Cooperation2?
COL. SMITH: To me the big difference is that in true joint operations we're talking about an integration of capabilities and it's not simply several services participating. The participation must be more than that. It must involve integration of the capabilities to take advantage of3 the synergistic4 effect that you achieve by combining capabilities. By the same token5, those who urge some caution about jointness-- that jointness is not always the answer to every circumstance, that perhaps you can try to achieve too much jointness at the expense of your capabilities as individual services. This certainly needs a lot more exploration6 .The basic functions of services are relatively traditional functions. We have had some discussions in our classes about whether these functions should be consistent or whether they need to change. It seems to most people that those are fairly consistent functions. And so the question is whether with new technology application, those functions can be done in a way that is different enough to make them distinctly different from what we are used to or have been used to in the past.
MR. CHEN: How will the legacy7 systems be dealt with during the process of achieving Joint capabilities? Is it possible to improve them and employ them in new and different ways?
COL. SMITH: Well, yes. I think it is. I think that legacy systems will first of all remain important although in some cases become less important, but it is always a mix of old and new systems. And it is very difficult, if not impossible, to change a military completely without dealing with legacy systems. Nor would you want to do that, I would argue. Some people have used the analogy8 of the tip of the spear as being the high-tech9, most capable force，but many other forces remain as part of the spear，still useful in many other operations. There are probably two thoughts here--one that there are types of operations for which legacy systems are still very useful--whether they be operations other than war, smaller conflicts, or fighting against a less capable enemy. And then the other piece is that many of those systems can still play a very useful role even with your higher-tech forces. For example, to some, the army's efforts to digitize the current force can be seen as essentially applying new technologies to old systems. But perhaps it is a way to transition some of those legacy systems with new ideas into newer systems in the future. But obviously they still can remain extremely useful in the interim.
MR. CHEN: In future Joint Operations，how will former operational arts such as Centers of Gravity10 and Decisive Points11, Simultaneity and Depth12, Timing and Tempo13, and so forth, change?
COL.SMITH:I think that most of those concepts first of all will still be extremely valid14, but in fact there may be some changes in centers of gravity--perhaps some of the centers of gravity may be different. And there might be, back to the information operations, different ways of attacking those centers of gravity, Timing and tempo are terms that we use frequently and we think are very important in the sense of 15 relative advantage of one side over the other. As for tempo of operations, normally the faster you can conduct simultaneous and coherent operations, the better, although there are those who caution that faster is not always better. There may be times when operation tempo is too fast. One example is whether it is too fast for political decision makers to ensure that the military instrument is being used effectively to achieve political objectives, and not simply to destroy things or to conduct warfare for warfare's sake16. And at the same time, from a military standpoint17, there may be reasonable limitations on how fast operations could be done and how comprehensive those operations can be in a theater of warfare18.The point I'm making is there still may have to be some sequential19 aspects of an operation，that you can't do everything at once everywhere. So I think there's much to be explored in those areas. And I'm an advocate of experimentation and war-gaming and exercises to try to understand how the operational art might be changing based on new concepts and new technology.
MR. CHEN: How do you view the complexity of command and control in joint operation? Along with the development of information technology，it is likely that command and control will become both centralized20 and decentralized21.How can centralized and decentralized command and control be effectively combined in practice?
COL. SMITH: We imply that there will be a significant increase in centralization necessary to conduct long-range strikes with a system of systems. By the same token，we are saying that potentially the smaller，fast moving forces will have to be decentralized to a significant degree in order for them to accomplish their missions very quickly and perhaps get out of an area if they need to do that. So there might be, as the question seems to indicate, some almost contradictory22 aspects. I think that is really one of the central issues for command and control，and I think we're going to have to somehow strike a balance between the two in the sense that there are practical limitations to the effectiveness of centralization, for example, in terms of having a system that controls where fighters are going to go and which platform fires and at what time. There will need to be a certain amount of that in order to get fire on target quick enough and to hit the target, and there's no way to really totally automate that--to take the man out of the loop, as some people say, and still provide the kind of effectiveness that the people on the ground will need. Again, an area that I would say needs some experimentation and practice to really see what the technology will permit23. And I think it goes back to the man in the loop, in terms of how people can then deal with what the technology potentially has the capability of doing.
Practice Listening to words詞匯聽力練習：
1.Joint Operation 聯合作戰(zhàn)
2.Multi-Services and Arms Cooperation 多軍兵種協(xié)同作戰(zhàn)
3.take advantage of 利用
4.synergistic [] adj協(xié)同的，協(xié)同作用
5.by the same token 同樣的
6.exploration［］n. 探索
7.legacy［］n. 遺產
legacy systems 現有（或陳舊）系統(tǒng)
8.analogy［］ 類推
9.high-tech 高技術
10.Centers of Gravity （作戰(zhàn)藝術中的）重心
11.Decisive Points （作戰(zhàn)藝術中的）決定點
12.Simultaneity and Depth （作戰(zhàn)藝術中的）同時和縱深
13.Timing and Tempo （作戰(zhàn)藝術中的）時機和節(jié)奏
14.valid [] adj. 有效的
15.in the sense of 在……意義上
16.sake [] n. 緣故
17.standpoint [] n. 立場，觀點
18.theater of warfare 戰(zhàn)區(qū)作戰(zhàn)
19.sequential [] adj.連續(xù)的，順序的
20.centralize [] vi. 集中
21.decentralize [] n. 分散
22.contradictory [] adj. 矛盾的
23.permit [] vt. 允許
【參考譯文】
現代聯合作戰(zhàn)
陳伯江:什么是聯合作戰(zhàn)的定義或確切含義?聯合作戰(zhàn)與多軍兵種協(xié)同作戰(zhàn)的區(qū)別是什么?
史密斯:在我看來，二者最大的不同，在于我們所說的真正意義上的聯合作戰(zhàn)，指的是各種作戰(zhàn)能力的一體化，而不僅僅是幾個軍種的簡單參與。聯合作戰(zhàn)中各軍種參與的程度要比協(xié)同作戰(zhàn)大得多。它必須實現多種作戰(zhàn)能力的一體化，以便充分利用各種能力相結合產生的增效。基于同樣的理由，有些人對聯合作戰(zhàn)問題提出了強烈的質疑，認為這種聯合并非總是解決一切問題的靈丹妙藥;認為只有以犧牲單個軍種的作戰(zhàn)能力為代價，才能取得充分的聯合作戰(zhàn)能力。對這些問題確實需要進行更多地探索。各軍種的基本功能相對來說都是傳統(tǒng)的功能。我們已在教學時對這些功能究竟是應繼續(xù)下去還是需作改變進行了討論。多數人認為各軍種的基本功能應當繼續(xù)保持。于是上述問題就變?yōu)?由于新技術的運用，能否以不同的方式實現這些功能，新的方式與我們現用的或過去已用的方式有明顯的不同。
陳:在實現聯合作戰(zhàn)能力的過程中，如何對待現有的武器系統(tǒng)?是否有可能改進它們和以新的、不同的方式運用它們?
史密斯:是的，我想是這樣。首先我認為現有的武器系統(tǒng)仍將是重要的，盡管在某些情況下重要程度有所下降。但通?？偸切隆⒗衔淦飨到y(tǒng)混合使用。完全更新軍隊的武器系統(tǒng)而淘汰舊系統(tǒng)，如果不是不可能的話，也是非常困難的。我敢說人們也不想那樣做。有些人把高技術和戰(zhàn)斗力強的部隊比作“刀尖”，但其它許多部隊仍然是“刀”的組成部分，在許多作戰(zhàn)中仍然有用。這大概可從兩個方面來加以認識，一是，現有武器系統(tǒng)在許多類型的作戰(zhàn)中——無論是非戰(zhàn)爭行動，還是更小的沖突，或者是與戰(zhàn)斗力較差的敵人作戰(zhàn)——仍然是有用的;二是，既使在裝備了更高技術的部隊中，許多現有武器系統(tǒng)仍能發(fā)揮重要作用。例如，有人認為，陸軍使現有部隊數字化的一些嘗試，基本上屬于把新技術運用于老系統(tǒng)。也許將來將陳舊系統(tǒng)轉變?yōu)楦碌南到y(tǒng)會有新的辦法。很明顯，在過渡期間陳舊武器系統(tǒng)仍是非常有用的。
陳:在未來的聯合作戰(zhàn)中，以往的作戰(zhàn)藝術如“重心”和“決定點”、“同時”和“縱深”、“時機”和“節(jié)奏”等等，將如何變化?
史密斯:首先，我認為以往的作戰(zhàn)概念大多數仍將適用。“重心”的概念可能會有一些變化，即有些“重心”可能與過去不同。仍以信息作戰(zhàn)來說，打擊“重心”的方式可能會有不同。“時機”和“節(jié)奏”是我們經常使用的術語，在形成一方對于另一方的優(yōu)勢時非常重要。就作戰(zhàn)的節(jié)奏而論，你能同時和緊湊地進行作戰(zhàn)，越快越好。盡管有人認為并非總是越快越好。有時作戰(zhàn)速度可能會太快。一個例子是作戰(zhàn)速度太快以致政治決策者無法確定軍事手段是否已有效地用來達成政治目標，而不只是簡單地用來進行毀滅或為打仗而打仗。與此同時，從軍事的角度來說，可在戰(zhàn)區(qū)作戰(zhàn)的速度能有多快，范圍能有多廣泛，也可能有一些適當的限制。我的意思是作戰(zhàn)仍可能順序展開，你不可能立刻在所有地方做所有事情。因此，我認為在這些領域有許多問題需要探索。我積極主張通過試驗、作戰(zhàn)模擬和演習，努力弄清以往的戰(zhàn)役法在新作戰(zhàn)概念和新技術基礎上會發(fā)生什么變化。
陳:你怎樣看待聯合作戰(zhàn)中指揮與控制問題的復雜性?隨著信息技術的發(fā)展，指揮與控制好像將要向集中和分散兩個方面發(fā)展，在實踐中怎樣使指揮控制的集中與分散有效地結合起來?
史密斯:我們的意思是，對于實施“系統(tǒng)集成”的遠距離打擊來說，更需要增加指揮與控制的集中程度。此外，我們也認為更小型、更快速的機動部隊的指揮與控制要大大分散，使他們能夠很快地完成任務，也許是很快地離開一個區(qū)域，如果他們需要那樣做的話。因此，正如這一問題所表明的，這里可能存在著一些相互矛盾的方面。我認為這確實是指揮與控制的一個核心問題。而且我認為我們必須設法在集中指揮與控制的有效性存在著實際限制的情況下（例如，要有一個系統(tǒng)來控制戰(zhàn)斗機向哪里飛和哪一個作戰(zhàn)平臺發(fā)射以及何時發(fā)射），求得集中與分散兩者之間的平衡。為了足夠快地向目標開火并擊毀目標，將需要一定數量的系統(tǒng)。但真正全部實現自動化（像某些人說的人離開指揮鏈）是不可能的。仍將需要地面上的人來提供那種集中指揮與控制的有效性。我想重申的一點是，我們需要一些試驗和實踐來確實弄清哪些技術適用于這一領域。并且我認為，就人們怎樣才能找到那些潛在的技術具有做這些的能力而言，它又重新回到指揮與控制鏈中的人上來。
