Unrestricted Warfare

1. The Evolving Nature of Warfare: Beyond Traditional Battlefields

If we acknowledge that the new principles of war are no longer “using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will,” but rather a “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military or non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.”

Warfare Transformed. The Gulf War marked a profound shift, signaling that warfare is no longer confined to conventional military engagements. This conflict, though limited in scope and duration, revealed that the function of war itself had changed, moving beyond glorious, dominating terms to a more subtle and pervasive role. The traditional definition of war, focused solely on armed force, is now obsolete, replaced by a broader understanding that encompasses a multitude of coercive means.

New Forms Emerge. The post-Cold War era has seen the rise of "semi-warfare, quasi-warfare, and sub-warfare," which are embryonic forms of conflict with destructive capabilities comparable to traditional war. These new forms leverage modern technology and interconnectedness, allowing for attacks that are complex, extensive, concealed, and subtle. Examples include:

• George Soros's financial attacks on East Asia
• Osama Bin Laden's terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies
• Aum Shinri Kyo's gas attack on the Tokyo subway
• Computer viruses and hacker attacks on the Internet

Redefining Conflict. This expanded definition means that future conflicts will not solely rely on bullets and bombs. Instead, they will be a "cocktail mixture" of armed and non-armed methods, military and non-military strategies, and lethal and non-lethal means. The goal remains to compel an enemy to accept one's interests, but the pathways to achieving this have become infinitely more diverse and less predictable.

2. The Blurring Lines of Combatants and Means

From now on, soldiers no longer have a monopoly on war.

New Combatants. The traditional image of war, fought exclusively by professional soldiers on a defined battlefield, is rapidly fading. Modern warfare sees a "civilianization" of conflict, where non-state actors and individuals, often without military training, can inflict significant damage. This shift challenges the conventional understanding of who fights and for whom.

Diverse Adversaries. The spectrum of potential adversaries has broadened dramatically, extending beyond sovereign states to include:

• Hackers: Individuals like the 16-year-old who compromised U.S. military systems.
• Non-state organizations: Terrorist groups (Osama bin Laden), cults (Aum Shinrikyo), drug cartels (Escobar), and militias.
• Financial speculators: Individuals like George Soros, whose actions can destabilize national economies.
• Media moguls: Those who control information flow and public opinion.

Expanded Means. The methods of engagement have similarly diversified, moving far beyond conventional military hardware. These new means can be just as, if not more, destructive than traditional weapons, often without bloodshed:

• Trade warfare: Tariffs, sanctions, embargoes on critical technologies.
• Financial warfare: Currency manipulation, stock market attacks, credit rating downgrades.
• Network warfare: Computer viruses, data theft, infrastructure paralysis.
• Ecological warfare: Man-made earthquakes, tsunamis, weather manipulation.
• Psychological warfare: Spreading rumors, manipulating media.

This evolution means that the "battlefield is omnipresent," extending to every aspect of society, from space and cyberspace to financial markets and public consciousness.

3. The "Unrestricted" Principle: Breaking All Boundaries

The real meaning of the concept of exceeding limits which we propose is, first of all, to transcend ideology.

Beyond Limits Thinking. The core of "unrestricted warfare" is an ideology that transcends all conventional boundaries—physical, spiritual, technical, ethical, and traditional. This means moving beyond the traditional constraints that define what constitutes a battlefield, a weapon, a soldier, or even acceptable rules of engagement. It's not about having no limits, but about expanding the scope of what is considered "limited" to achieve objectives.

Machiavellian Approach. This philosophy draws inspiration from Machiavelli, advocating the use of "fair means or foul" to achieve objectives. In the context of modern warfare, this translates to a willingness to employ any available means, including extreme ones, if they are the most effective path to victory. This requires a complete military rethink, moving beyond the narrow confines of military-centric strategies.

Comprehensive Combination. The "unrestricted" principle culminates in "modified combined war that goes beyond limits," a new method of warfare that:

• Assembles and blends diverse means to resolve problems.
• Operates in a range wider than the problem itself.
• Combines all available war resources, both material and non-material.

This approach fundamentally challenges the historical understanding of warfare, pushing it into realms previously considered outside military purview.

4. The Power of Combination: A New Methodology for Victory

Regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional, the carrying out of combined methods of operation using different methods of operation that go beyond domains and categories has already been applied by many nations in the practice of warfare.

Synergistic Warfare. The essence of modern victory lies in the art of combination, where diverse elements are ingeniously blended to create a force multiplier. This isn't merely adding resources but strategically integrating them across various domains and categories to achieve objectives that single-method approaches cannot. From ancient strategists like King Wu and Alexander the Great to modern commanders, the ability to combine forces, tactics, and even non-military elements has been a consistent secret to success.

Beyond Traditional Blends. While past masters combined weapons, formations, and stratagems within the military sphere, today's "cocktail" of warfare demands a broader, "beyond-limits" approach. This involves consciously adding and combining elements from both military and non-military realms. For example:

• Military + Non-military: Conventional warfare + diplomatic warfare + sanction warfare + media warfare + psychological warfare + intelligence warfare (e.g., UN actions against Iraq).
• Non-state + State: Financial warfare + regulatory warfare + psychological warfare + media warfare (e.g., Hong Kong's defense against speculators).
• Individual + Technology: One hacker + one modem causing strategic-level damage.

The "Addition" Principle. This methodology is akin to an "addition" principle, where 1+1 is greater than 1. It emphasizes that the ability to understand what to combine and how to combine it is paramount. This requires uninhibited thought, transcending political, historical, cultural, and ethical fetters to leverage the vast array of new technologies and factors emerging from an integrated world.

5. The Golden Rule of Victory: Asymmetry and Deviation

The golden rule = the side-principal rule.

Unveiling the Secret. Throughout history, victorious generals, often instinctively, conformed to a hidden "rule of victory," akin to the mathematical "golden section" (0.618). This rule, termed the "side-principal rule," dictates an asymmetrical approach: instead of direct confrontation, one should deviate towards a "side" element that directs or modifies the "principal" element, exploiting an enemy's unexpected vulnerabilities.

Historical Manifestations. This principle is evident in numerous historical battles:

• Tian Ji's horse racing: Losing one race to win two, achieving a 2:3 ratio (0.618).
• Changshao battle: Lu forces avoided Qi's initial momentum, counterattacking when Qi was exhausted.
• Hannibal at Cannae: Deployed weakest forces centrally to absorb Roman attacks, then flanked with cavalry.
• German Blitzkrieg: Deviated from traditional frontal assaults, using tanks and surprise through the Ardennes.
• Pearl Harbor: Yamamoto's use of aircraft carriers for a sneak attack, hitting an unexpected "side" target.

Dominant Elements. The side-principal rule also applies to identifying and leveraging "dominant elements" within a conflict:

• Dominant weapons: Stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, precision bombs (Gulf War).
• Dominant means: Aerial bombardment (Gulf War), financial suffocation (against terrorists).
• Dominant forces: Helicopters challenging tanks as "kings of land warfare."
• Dominant direction: Nelson's attack on the rear of the French fleet at Trafalgar.
• Dominant sphere: Non-military actions resolving conflicts (Lian Xiangru's diplomatic battle).

This rule is not a rigid formula but a principle that guides fuzzy application, emphasizing intuition and adaptability to the ever-changing nature of war.

6. The American Paradox: High-Tech Extravagance vs. Strategic Blind Spots

The vast majority of development plans of the present American military, such as those of the army for the 21st century, are all focused upon dealing with an enemy with conventional heavy armor, and if the United States encounters an enemy with low level technology, an intermediate level enemy, or one with equivalent power at the beginning of the next century, then the problem of insufficient frequency band width will possibly occur.

Post-Gulf War Myopia. Despite its technological prowess and victory in the Gulf War, the U.S. military exhibited a significant strategic blind spot, primarily preparing for conventional, high-tech conflicts against state actors. This "illness of extravagance" led to massive spending on sophisticated weaponry and a focus on "zero casualties," creating a military that was technologically advanced but tactically stagnant and vulnerable to unconventional threats.

Internal Divisions and Lagging Thought. Each U.S. military branch interpreted the Gulf War through its own lens, leading to internal competition for resources and a fragmented approach to reform. While the Army pursued "digitized forces" and the Air Force emphasized "global power," their military thinking often lagged behind their technological capabilities. Concepts like "total dimensional warfare," which sought to integrate military and non-military operations, were proposed but ultimately discarded due to conservative resistance and a narrow focus on traditional military domains.

Vulnerability to Asymmetry. This over-reliance on high-tech, conventional warfare left the U.S. military with an "insufficient frequency band width" to effectively counter asymmetrical threats. Incidents like hacker intrusions, the World Trade Center bombing, and bin Laden's attacks demonstrated that the U.S. was ill-prepared psychologically and operationally for enemies operating outside its conventional framework. The pursuit of "victory at all costs" often translated into exorbitant spending without a corresponding revolution in military thought, making the U.S. a "big elephant charging into a china shop" when faced with agile, unconventional adversaries.

7. Supra-National and Supra-Domain Warfare: Expanding the Arena

This method, resolving conflicts or conducting warfare not just with national power, but also with combinations of supra-national, transnational, and non-state power, is what we mean by the general term supra-national combinations.

Beyond State-Centric Conflict. Modern warfare transcends national borders, requiring "supra-national combinations" that integrate national, international, and non-state organizations. The nation-state, while still significant, is increasingly influenced by global entities, making purely national security approaches obsolete. Great powers now leverage these broader networks to amplify their influence and achieve objectives.

Examples of Supra-National Combinations:

• U.S. against Iraq: Collusion with UN, 30+ nations, economic embargo, weapons inspections.
• European Community: Unification through the Euro, a vigorous process of supra-national integration.
• U.S. in Asian Financial Crisis: Opposed Asian monetary fund, pushed IMF rescue with conditions (market liberalization), allowing U.S. capital to acquire assets cheaply.

Beyond Battlefield Domains. "Supra-domain combinations" expand the battlefield beyond the military sphere to encompass politics, economics, culture, diplomacy, and even psychology. Any domain can become a principal battlefield, and actions in one domain can profoundly impact others. Examples include:

• "Black Monday" (1987): U.S. Navy attack on Iranian oil platform triggered a stock market crash.
• Taiwan Strait missile tests (1995-96): Chinese military exercises caused a Taiwan stock market slide.
• Economic blockades: Causing non-military damage and weakening military potential (e.g., Iraq).

This multi-faceted approach recognizes that the outcome of a war can be decided by non-military factors, demanding a holistic strategy that shuffles all domains like playing cards.

8. Essential Principles for Unrestricted Warfare

No principle can rest on a flimsy platform waiting to collapse.

Guiding the Unrestricted. While "unrestricted warfare" advocates breaking traditional limits, it is guided by a set of essential principles that provide a framework for action. These principles, born from the lessons of modern conflicts, are indispensable for perfecting combat methods in an era where war's nature has fundamentally changed. They are not rigid formulas but flexible guidelines for navigating complex, multi-dimensional conflicts.

Core Principles:

• Omnidirectionality: 360° observation and design, considering all related factors across natural and social spaces (ground, cyber, economic, cultural).
• Synchrony: Conducting actions in different spaces within the same period of time, aiming for simultaneous impact rather than sequential phases.
• Limited Objectives: Setting objectives that are always smaller than the available measures, ensuring feasibility and avoiding overreach.
• Unlimited Measures: Employing any measure necessary to achieve limited objectives, breaking through restrictions without being intemperate.
• Asymmetry: Seeking nodes of action in directions opposite to symmetrical confrontation, exploiting an enemy's soft spots.
• Minimal Consumption: Using the least amount of combat resources to accomplish objectives, prioritizing rationality and effective combat forms.
• Multidimensional Coordination: Coordinating all mobilizable forces (military and non-military, tangible and intangible) across various spheres.
• Adjustment and Control of the Entire Process: Continuously acquiring information, adjusting actions, and controlling the situation throughout the dynamic and potentially short course of a war.

These principles collectively define a new combat philosophy for an unexplored battlefield, against unfamiliar enemies, using strange and novel methods.