Analytics and Reports, China Analytics, Uncategorized

Zhinǎo quán (制脑权): Assessing China’s Strategy for Cognitive Dominance and the PLA’s Battlefield Brain Program

This report assesses China’s “Battlefield Brain Program,” concluding it is not an isolated research project but a comprehensive, state-directed national strategy to weaponize brain science and achieve “cognitive dominance” (制脑权, zhinǎo quán). This strategy is an integral and necessary component of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) doctrinal shift toward “intelligentized warfare” (智能化战争), a new paradigm of conflict in which victory is determined by superiority in artificial intelligence, data, and cognitive control. The program aims to achieve strategic victory by subduing an enemy’s will to fight, disrupting its decision-making processes, and paralyzing its societal and military functions, potentially without resorting to widespread kinetic conflict.

The program is built upon three core pillars. The first is a novel warfighting doctrine, Cognitive Warfare (认知作战), which evolves beyond traditional information and psychological operations to directly target the cognitive functions of an adversary by weaponizing neuroscience. The second is a rapidly advancing technological arsenal, enabled by the fusion of AI, biotechnology, and Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), which China is developing for both enhancing its own soldiers and attacking the neurological and cognitive processes of its adversaries. The third pillar is a unique organizational ecosystem, driven by the national Military-Civil Fusion (军民融合) strategy and a newly reorganized PLA force structure. This ecosystem eliminates barriers between civilian academia, private industry, and the military, ensuring that breakthroughs in brain science are rapidly weaponized. The April 2024 restructuring of the PLA, which created the specialized Information Support Force (ISF) and Cyberspace Force (CSF), marks a transition from integrated research and development to a more streamlined structure optimized for operational execution of cognitive warfare.

This multi-faceted strategy poses a profound and asymmetric risk to the United States and its allies. It threatens to erode alliance cohesion, destabilize democratic institutions, degrade military command and control in a crisis, and achieve Chinese strategic objectives, such as the annexation of Taiwan, by “winning without fighting.” This report provides a detailed analysis of the program’s evolution, capabilities, and future trajectory, concluding with actionable recommendations for a comprehensive U.S. counter-strategy focused on doctrinal development, defensive technology, whole-of-society resilience, and the establishment of international norms.

I. Strategic Context: The Dawn of “Intelligentized Warfare”

China’s pursuit of military brain science is not an opportunistic exploitation of new technologies but a direct and necessary consequence of a fundamental, top-down doctrinal shift within the People’s Liberation Army. The PLA’s evolving concepts of future warfare, which predict battlefields saturated with artificial intelligence and autonomous systems operating at machine speed, create an existential challenge for the human decision-maker. The “Battlefield Brain Program” is China’s answer to this challenge—a required line of effort to make its entire concept of future warfare viable by enhancing, defending, and attacking the human cognitive element.

The PLA’s Doctrinal Evolution

The PLA’s strategic posture has undergone a significant transformation since the 1980s. Under Deng Xiaoping, the focus was on modernizing to dominate “local wars” on China’s periphery.1 Today, under Xi Jinping, the ambition is to forge a “world-class” military capable of safeguarding China’s expanding global interests, including national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and maritime rights.1 This modernization is driven by Xi’s assessment that China must “adapt to the trend of a new global military revolution” to contend with a world of intensifying global issues and regional conflicts.1

From Informatization to Intelligentization

This revolution is defined by the PLA’s strategic transition from “informatization” (信息化) to “intelligentization” (智能化).2 Informatization, the focus of the past two decades, centered on developing network-centric warfare capabilities and sophisticated Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems.2 The goal was to achieve victory by disrupting an adversary’s information systems, thereby paralyzing its material capabilities.3

Intelligentization represents the next stage, mandating the deep and comprehensive integration of artificial intelligence, autonomous platforms, and human-machine fusion into all PLA operations.1 This doctrine, formally adopted in PLA strategic documents, anticipates that future conflicts will be defined by “intelligentized operations” (智能化作战) involving intelligent autonomy and multi-domain integration.2 The PLA has set clear timelines for this transition, aiming to “accelerate the integrated development of mechanisation, informatisation, and intelligentisation” by 2027 and complete the modernization of the military by 2035.1 This doctrinal shift is predicated on the belief that “algorithmic advantage” will become a dominant determinant of operational outcomes.2

The Cognitive Domain as a New Battlespace

A central tenet of intelligentized warfare is the expansion of the battlefield into a new, non-physical domain: the human mind. PLA theorists, including senior figures at the Academy of Military Science (AMS), explicitly state that the “sphere of operations will be expanded from the physical domain and the information domain to the domain of consciousness (意识域); the human brain will become a new combat space”.2 This view is echoed in the PLA’s official newspaper,

PLA Daily, which identifies the cognitive space as the “key operational space” in intelligentized warfare, where cognitive advantage is a “strategic advantage”.6 This conceptualization transforms the human brain from a mere recipient of information into a contested battlespace to be seized and controlled. The speed and data saturation of intelligentized warfare create a fundamental problem: the human operator becomes the slowest and most vulnerable link in the decision-making chain. The PLA Daily acknowledges that in the face of massive, complex data flows, human perception is “dull and slow” (愚钝迟缓).6 PLA thinkers express deep concern about the “intense cognitive challenges” that future commanders will face.2 To prevent the human from becoming a critical system vulnerability, the PLA has concluded it must “upgrade human cognitive performance to keep pace with the complexity of warfare”.2

The Imperative for “Dominance”

This new doctrine necessitates the pursuit of dominance in previously conceptualized domains. PLA strategists now openly call for achieving not only information and air superiority but also “biological dominance” (制生权), “mental/cognitive dominance” (制脑权, zhinǎo quán), and “intelligence dominance” (制智权).2 This marks a critical conceptual leap from merely controlling the flow of information to directly controlling the cognitive processes of friendly and enemy personnel. This imperative is the fundamental driver of China’s comprehensive investment in military brain science.

II. The Conceptual Framework: Military Brain Science and Cognitive Warfare

To operationalize its doctrine of cognitive dominance, China is developing a comprehensive scientific framework and a new theory of warfare that goes far beyond traditional influence operations. This framework, termed Military Brain Science, provides the scientific foundation for a new form of conflict: Cognitive Warfare.

Defining Cognitive Warfare (认知作战)

Cognitive warfare, as conceptualized by the PLA, is a distinct and more advanced form of conflict than its predecessors. Whereas traditional information warfare manipulates what people think by controlling the flow of information, cognitive warfare aims to disrupt how people think by targeting the process of rationality itself.8 It is an insidious form of conflict designed to influence thought and action, thereby destabilizing democratic institutions and national security.8 Taiwanese researchers, who are on the front line of this conflict, highlight the key distinction: “only cognitive warfare weaponizes neuroscience and targets brain control”.9 PLA theorists define the “cognitive space” (认知空间) as the area where “feelings, perception, understanding, beliefs, and values exist, and is the field of decision-making through reasoning”.9 This is the battlespace they seek to dominate.

From “Three Warfares” to Cognitive Dominance

Cognitive warfare represents a significant evolution of the PLA’s long-standing “Three Warfares” doctrine, which integrates public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare.11 While it incorporates elements of all three, its ambition is far greater. It extends beyond shaping narratives and perceptions to the direct manipulation and degradation of cognitive processes, aiming for what PLA thinkers term “mind superiority” (制脑权) or “cognitive control”.7 The ultimate strategic objective is to achieve victory by disintegrating an adversary’s societal and military will to fight, thereby realizing the Sun Tzu ideal of “winning without fighting”.7

The Military Brain Science (MBS) Framework

The scientific underpinning for this new form of warfare is a comprehensive framework proposed by Chinese military medical researchers called Military Brain Science (MBS).14 MBS is a cutting-edge, interdisciplinary science guided by potential military applications. It systematically organizes research into nine distinct but interrelated fields, creating a roadmap for transforming neuroscience into military capability 14:

  1. Understanding the Brain: Foundational research into neural principles.
  2. Protecting the Brain: Developing defensive countermeasures to protect PLA personnel from cognitive attacks.
  3. Monitoring the Brain: Using technologies like smart sensor bracelets to assess the real-time cognitive and emotional states of soldiers to determine their combat status.15
  4. Injuring the Brain: Researching non-kinetic and kinetic methods to cause targeted neurological damage.
  5. Interfering with the Brain: Developing capabilities to disrupt enemy cognitive processes, sow confusion, and degrade decision-making.
  6. Repairing the Brain: Advancing neuro-medical treatments for PLA personnel.
  7. Enhancing the Brain: Augmenting the cognitive capabilities of PLA soldiers through neurotechnology, pharmacology, and other means.
  8. Simulating the Brain: Leveraging insights from neuroscience to advance brain-inspired computing and artificial intelligence.
  9. Arming the Brain: Creating direct neural control of weapons systems through technologies like Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) to establish a command system where “perception is decision making, decision making is attack”.14

The “One Body, Two Wings” Principle

This military framework mirrors the structure of China’s national-level civilian “China Brain Project.” That project is organized on the principle of “One body, two wings” (一体两翼), where the “body” is the fundamental study of neural cognition, and the “two wings” are the dual applications of treating brain disease and developing new brain-inspired AI and computing technologies.14 The MBS framework functions similarly, leveraging fundamental research for direct, dual-use military applications, ensuring a rapid transition from laboratory to battlefield.

To clarify the distinct nature of cognitive warfare, the following table compares it with the PLA’s other information operations concepts. A failure by policymakers to grasp these distinctions can lead to a critical underestimation of the threat, as cognitive warfare represents a qualitative leap in capability and intent.

Table 2.1: A Comparative Analysis of PLA Information Operations Concepts

ConceptPrimary TargetCore MethodsEnabling TechnologiesStrategic Goal
Public Opinion Warfare (舆论战)Domestic and international audiences; public sentimentPropaganda; narrative shaping; media guidanceMass media; social media networksBuild support; shape perceptions; seize moral high ground 7
Psychological Warfare (心理战)Enemy military personnel and leaders; adversary psychologyDeception; coercion; intimidation; demoralizationPropaganda; targeted communicationsWeaken fighting will; induce doubt; disintegrate enemy morale 7
Information Warfare (信息战)Enemy information systems and data flowsCyber attack; electronic warfare; network disruptionC4ISR systems; cyber tools; electronic weaponsControl the flow of information; achieve information superiority 3
Cognitive Warfare (认知作战)Human cognitive processes; rationality; decision-makingNeuro-manipulation; AI-driven disinformation; cognitive interferenceWeaponized neuroscience; AI; BCIs; biotechnologyControl thought processes; paralyze decision-making; “win without fighting” 8

III. The Technological Arsenal: Weaponizing Neuroscience, AI, and Biotechnology

China is aggressively developing and integrating a suite of emerging technologies to provide the tangible capabilities required by its cognitive warfare doctrine. This effort is focused on two parallel tracks: enhancing the capabilities of its own forces through human-machine fusion and developing novel weapons to attack the cognitive functions of its adversaries.

A. Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI): The Cornerstone of Human-Machine Fusion

BCIs are the central enabling technology for the PLA’s vision of “hybrid intelligence.” China’s progress in this field is rapid, state-directed, and explicitly dual-use.

Rapid, State-Supported Progress

China’s BCI development is a national priority, driven by the “China Brain Project” (2016-2030) and substantial state funding.2 This has resulted in China becoming second only to the United States in BCI-related patents and, critically, the second country in the world to advance invasive BCI technology to the clinical trial phase.19

Technical Achievements

Chinese institutions have achieved world-class breakthroughs. In a landmark trial, researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Fudan University’s Huashan Hospital successfully implanted an invasive BCI in a tetraplegic patient, enabling him to control electronic devices with his thoughts.20 The research team, led by Zhao Zhengtuo, has also developed ultra-flexible neural electrodes that are the smallest in the world, with a cross-sectional area one-fifth that of Neuralink’s electrodes and over 100 times greater flexibility, significantly reducing damage to brain tissue.20 In the non-invasive domain, research at institutions like Tianjin University has produced high-speed BCI systems with the world’s largest command sets, designed for applications from astronaut support to industrial control.21

Dual-Use Pathway from Medical to Military

China’s public emphasis on the therapeutic benefits of BCI research is a deliberate strategic choice. This focus allows China to participate in and benefit from the open global scientific community, acquire Western technology under a benign pretext, and accelerate its fundamental research. However, under the state’s military-civil fusion framework, these same breakthroughs are immediately funneled to military laboratories for weaponization. This creates a parallel, classified development track that leverages the progress of the unclassified one, masking true intentions and co-opting global research for military ends.2

While public reports highlight medical applications for treating conditions like ALS and paralysis 23, PLA strategists and military-affiliated research institutions are simultaneously pursuing direct military applications.2 These applications fall into three main categories:

  • Soldier Enhancement: This includes using BCI and wearable sensors to monitor soldiers’ health, psychological states, and cognitive load in real-time.15 Other research focuses on enhancing alertness with devices like “anti-sleep glasses” 13 and exploring futuristic concepts like directly “downloading” skills and combat experience into a soldier’s brain.16
  • Human-Machine Teaming: The PLA envisions using BCIs to enable direct “thought control” of unmanned systems like drones and robotic vehicles.2 This would dramatically shorten the OODA loop, creating a direct link from perception to action and bypassing verbal or physical commands.14
  • Hybrid Intelligence: The ultimate goal is to create a new form of “hybrid intelligence” (混合智能) by deeply fusing human and machine cognition. A director at the Central Military Commission’s Science and Technology Commission stated that “human-machine hybrid intelligence will be the highest form of future intelligence”.2

B. Cognitive Attack and Manipulation Technologies

Alongside enhancement, the PLA is developing a portfolio of technologies designed to degrade, disrupt, and damage the cognitive capabilities of its adversaries.

Non-Kinetic Attack: “NeuroStrike”

Chinese military-affiliated reports discuss the concept of “NeuroStrike,” a new class of non-kinetic weapon.13 It is defined as the covert use of combined technologies—including radio frequency, low-megahertz acoustics, nanotechnology, and electromagnetics—to inflict direct and potentially permanent neurological damage or cognitive degradation on targeted individuals from a distance.13 This represents a dangerous escalation from influence operations to direct, non-lethal (but permanently damaging) physical attacks on the brain.

AI-Driven Disinformation and Psychological Manipulation

China is harnessing the convergence of AI, big data, and social media to conduct cognitive warfare at an unprecedented scale and granularity.26 The PLA is developing systems that use Generative AI to create hyper-targeted, culturally resonant disinformation at machine speed.27 These campaigns are designed not merely to spread a message but to achieve specific cognitive effects: polarizing societies, fracturing cohesion within alliances, sowing doubt, and eroding trust in democratic institutions.8

Biotechnology and Pharmacological Enhancement

The PLA’s pursuit of “biological dominance” extends to biotechnology and pharmacology.2 Research is reportedly underway on “genetic drugs” designed to modify the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral traits of targeted populations.13 Concurrently, the PLA is exploring the use of performance-enhancing pharmaceuticals, such as Modafinil, to improve the cognition, alertness, and endurance of its own soldiers.13

IV. Command and Control: The Military-Civil Fusion Ecosystem and PLA Force Structure

China’s Battlefield Brain Program is not an ad-hoc collection of research projects but a coherent national endeavor enabled by a unique organizational architecture. This architecture combines a top-down national strategy, Military-Civil Fusion, with a bottom-up, reorganized military force structure designed for operational execution.

A. The Engine: Military-Civil Fusion (军民融合)

Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) is the primary engine driving the weaponization of brain science in China. It is a national strategy, personally overseen by Xi Jinping, with the explicit goal of developing the PLA into a “world-class military” by eliminating all barriers between China’s civilian research, commercial, and military sectors.22

Application to Brain Science

In the context of brain science, MCF ensures that any innovation, regardless of where it originates, is available for military application. It formalizes the process of leveraging breakthroughs from top civilian institutions and private companies for military purposes.2 This creates a vast, interconnected ecosystem where civilian progress directly fuels military capability. The Central Military Commission (CMC) Science & Technology Commission (S&TC) is a key coordinating body, directing funds and establishing programs specifically focused on military brain science, human enhancement, and human-machine fusion intelligence.2 The table below maps the key players in this ecosystem, illustrating the tangible mechanics of the MCF strategy.

Table 4.1: Key PLA and Civilian Organizations in Brain Science and Cognitive Warfare R&D

OrganizationCategoryPrimary Role/ContributionKey References
CMC Science & Technology CommissionMilitaryStrategic direction; funding; promotion of MCF in brain science and human enhancement.2
Academy of Military Science (AMS)MilitaryDoctrinal development; defines cognitive domain as a battlespace; leads military scientific enterprise.2
National University of Defense Technology (NUDT)MilitaryLong-term BCI research; development of brain-controlled drones and robots.2
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)State-Owned AcademiaFundamental research; key breakthroughs in invasive BCI technology and flexible electrodes.14
Tianjin UniversityUniversity/AcademiaLeading research in non-invasive BCI; development of the “Braintalker” chip.21
Fudan University / Huashan HospitalUniversity/AcademiaConducted China’s first clinical trials for invasive BCIs in collaboration with CAS.20
Beijing Institute for Brain ResearchState-Owned AcademiaAchieved first clinical application of a wireless implanted Chinese language BCI system.23

B. The Operators: PLA Force Structure Reorganization (April 2024)

The April 2024 reorganization of the PLA represents a critical step in the evolution of its cognitive warfare capabilities, marking a shift from integrated research and development to specialized operationalization.

Dissolution of the Strategic Support Force (SSF)

This landmark reform disbanded the Strategic Support Force (SSF), which was created in 2015 as a central hub for the PLA’s space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare capabilities.1 The SSF served as a crucial incubator, forcing the integration of previously disparate units and fostering the development of new, cross-domain concepts like cognitive warfare.32 Its dissolution after nine years suggests that this initial phase of conceptual integration was successful and that its component parts had matured sufficiently to become independent, mission-focused forces.30

Creation of New Forces

The SSF was replaced by three new arms that report directly to the Central Military Commission: the Aerospace Force (ASF), the Cyberspace Force (CSF), and the Information Support Force (ISF).1 This new structure is designed for more efficient command and control in a multi-domain conflict.

Roles in Cognitive Warfare

The reorganization created a clearer division of labor for waging cognitive warfare, separating the role of the network “provider” from the operational “user.”

  • Information Support Force (ISF): The ISF has a foundational support role. It is responsible for building, operating, and defending the PLA’s “network information systems”.1 This force provides the secure, resilient, and high-capacity communications and data architecture that is the essential backbone for delivering cognitive effects across the battlespace. Its mission is to ensure information dominance at the infrastructure level.
  • Cyberspace Force (CSF): The CSF inherits and consolidates the SSF’s offensive mission set for the information domain. It is explicitly responsible for conducting cyber attacks, electronic warfare, and psychological warfare.12 The CSF is the PLA’s primary warfighting command for executing cognitive warfare campaigns. Its doctrine combines cyber operations with psychological manipulation to achieve specific cognitive effects against an adversary.12

This separation allows each force to specialize: the ISF focuses on building a robust network, while the CSF focuses on developing and executing sophisticated cognitive attacks that leverage that network. This is a move from an all-encompassing R&D organization to a more streamlined, mission-focused structure designed for warfighting at scale.

V. Strategic Implications for the United States and Allied Nations

China’s systematic development of a cognitive warfare capability, underpinned by a robust scientific and technological base, presents a series of profound and asymmetric challenges to the security of the United States and its allies. The implications extend beyond the traditional military balance, threatening the very foundations of democratic governance and collective defense.

The Threat of “Victory Without Fighting”

The primary strategic danger posed by China’s program is its potential to achieve major geopolitical objectives, such as the forcible annexation of Taiwan, by circumventing a direct military confrontation. The ultimate goal of cognitive warfare is not persuasion, but strategic paralysis. By creating a “competition of truths” 9, flooding information channels, and eroding trust in all institutions, the aim is to make coherent, collective decision-making impossible for an adversary. This could paralyze an adversary’s political and military leadership and collapse its societal will to resist, achieving a state of functional, cognitive disarmament before the first shot is fired.7

Erosion of Alliance Cohesion

AI-driven, micro-targeted cognitive warfare campaigns are potent tools for undermining alliances. These operations can be tailored to exploit pre-existing social, political, and cultural fissures within and between allied nations, amplifying dissent and sowing doubt about the reliability of security commitments.8 By fracturing the internal cohesion of key allies and fostering distrust in institutions like NATO, China could effectively weaken collective defense arrangements and isolate the United States in a crisis.

Destabilization of Democratic Institutions

Cognitive warfare poses a particularly acute threat to open, democratic societies. The principles of free expression and open access to information that are core strengths of democracies also create vulnerabilities that can be exploited by state-sponsored disinformation and manipulation.8 The PLA’s doctrine explicitly targets the process of rationality itself, seeking to destabilize the very bedrock of democratic governance by eroding public trust, exacerbating polarization, and undermining faith in electoral processes and government institutions.8

Degradation of Military Decision-Making

In a direct conflict scenario, cognitive warfare capabilities could be used to degrade U.S. and allied military effectiveness. Attacks could target the cognitive functions of commanders and personnel to induce confusion, slow reaction times, create “mental disarray,” and reduce trust in equipment and intelligence.36 The development of “NeuroStrike” capabilities, even if nascent, introduces the alarming possibility of using directed energy or other means to incapacitate key military and political decision-makers at critical moments, disrupting command and control when it is needed most.13

The New Frontier of Arms Control

The weaponization of neuroscience and AI creates a new and deeply challenging domain for international security norms and arms control. The lines between permissible public diplomacy, covert influence, and an overt cognitive “attack” are dangerously blurred. Attribution for such attacks is technically and politically difficult, which complicates traditional models of deterrence and retaliation. Without established international standards, this domain risks a rapid and destabilizing arms race with few rules of engagement.8

VI. Recommendations for a Proactive National Security Posture

Countering China’s comprehensive strategy for cognitive dominance requires an equally comprehensive and proactive response from the United States and its allies. This response cannot be limited to the military domain but must encompass a whole-of-society effort to build resilience and defend the cognitive security of democratic nations. The U.S. should not—and cannot—mirror China’s authoritarian approach. A successful counter-strategy must be asymmetric, focusing on strengthening the inherent advantages of open societies: critical thinking, institutional trust, and individual cognitive liberty. The goal is to “inoculate” the population and decision-makers against manipulation, rather than engaging in a symmetric race to control minds.

1. Develop a U.S. Cognitive Security Doctrine: The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Intelligence Community and other government agencies, must move beyond ambiguous terms like “information warfare” and develop a formal, structured doctrine for cognitive security. This requires creating a “cognitive-warfare ontology” that maps the domain, defines threats, and establishes clear lines of authority.8 This effort must integrate expertise from not only military and intelligence fields but also from psychology, neuroscience, data science, and ethics to fully grasp the nature of the threat.8

2. Accelerate Defensive Neurotechnology and Cognitive Security R&D: The U.S. must increase investment in research and development aimed at protecting the cognitive functions of its military personnel and decision-makers. This includes expanding the scope and funding for programs like DARPA’s Intrinsic Cognitive Security (ICS), which is developing methods to protect users of mixed-reality systems from cognitive attack.38 Priority should be given to developing neuro-adaptive human-machine interfaces that can monitor cognitive load and augment a warfighter’s cognitive functions under the extreme stress of an intelligentized battlefield.40

3. Establish a “Whole-of-Society” Resilience Strategy: Defending against cognitive warfare is a national security imperative that cannot be shouldered by the military alone. The White House should lead a national effort to:

  • Promote Cognitive Readiness: Develop national-level programs for “cognitive readiness education and training” through the Department of Education and civil society partners. These programs should focus on improving critical thinking skills and media literacy to help citizens of all ages identify and resist disinformation and manipulation.40
  • Secure Critical Infrastructure: The Department of Homeland Security must work with public and private sector partners to identify and fortify critical infrastructure against attacks that blend cyber, physical, and cognitive elements.8
  • Address Algorithmic Amplification: Engage with technology companies and legislators to develop regulations and best practices that mitigate the risk of algorithm-driven social media platforms being exploited to amplify cognitive attacks and societal polarization.8

4. Lead the Development of International Norms: The State Department, in concert with allies, should proactively lead efforts to establish international legal and ethical boundaries for the military application of neurotechnology and cognitive warfare. This includes working through international bodies to define what constitutes a prohibited cognitive attack, developing frameworks for responsible innovation in neuroscience, and creating mechanisms for deterrence and response that do not rely solely on symmetric capabilities.8

5. Enhance Intelligence and Threat Assessment: The Intelligence Community must dedicate increased resources to systematically monitoring, analyzing, and exposing China’s efforts in this domain. This requires a multi-disciplinary approach to track scientific publications in brain science, monitor PLA procurement of dual-use technologies, and map the specific pathways through which the Military-Civil Fusion strategy funnels civilian research into military programs.40 Publicly releasing declassified findings can help build domestic and international awareness of the threat.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

Sources Used

  1. Mapping the Recent Trends in China’s Military Modernisation – 2025, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/research/mapping-the-recent-trends-in-china-s-military-modernisation-2025
  2. Minds at War: China’s Pursuit of Military Advantage through Cognitive Science and Biotechnology – NDU Press, accessed October 4, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/prism/prism_8-3/prism_8-3_Kania_82-101.pdf
  3. Finding the Right Model: The Joint Force, the People’s Liberation Army, and Information Warfare – Air University, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3371164/finding-the-right-model-the-joint-force-the-peoples-liberation-army-and-informa/
  4. People’s Liberation Army Versus the United States Army: Who Wins the Network Modernization Fight? – from MIPB, accessed October 4, 2025, https://mipb.ikn.army.mil/issues/continuous-transformation-2025/people-s-liberation-army-versus-the-us-army/
  5. (U) The PLA and Intelligent Warfare: A Preliminary Analysis – CNA.org., accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.cna.org/reports/2021/10/The-PLA-and-Intelligent-Warfare-A-Preliminary-Analysis.pdf
  6. 释放认知战力撬动胜战之门- 解放军报- 中国军网, accessed October 4, 2025, http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2021-08/31/content_297967.htm
  7. China and Cognitive Warfare: An Overview – MP-IDSA, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.idsa.in/publisher/issuebrief/china-and-cognitive-warfare-an-overview
  8. China is waging cognitive warfare. Fighting back starts by defining it. – Defense One, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/03/china-waging-cognitive-warfare-fighting-back-starts-defining-it/403886/
  9. CHINA’S EFFORT TO ENSURE INFORMATION ADVANTAGE COGNITIVE WARFARE – from MIPB, accessed October 4, 2025, https://mipb.ikn.army.mil/media/dwzdignr/cognitive-warfare.pdf
  10. How China’s Cognitive Warfare Works: A Frontline Perspective of Taiwan’s Anti-Disinformation Wars | Journal of Global Security Studies | Oxford Academic, accessed October 4, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/7/4/ogac016/6647447
  11. 中共戰略支援部隊的認知作戰能力析議 – 遠景基金會, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.pf.org.tw/wSite/public/Attachment/003/f1701151439743.pdf
  12. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2024 – DoD, accessed October 4, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  13. China’s “Lethal Trio” Of Bio Weapons, A.I., Brain Warfare Attempts To Strike Terror In Opponents Mind & Win Without Fighting – EurAsian Times, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.eurasiantimes.com/trio-of-bio-weapons-a-i-brain-warfare-attempts-to-strike-terror-in-opponents-mind-win-without-fighting/
  14. Military Brain Science – How to influence future wars – PMC, accessed October 4, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6235785/
  15. Cognitive Warfare – NATO’s ACT, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/
  16. 脑机接口的军事前景-瞭望周刊社, accessed October 4, 2025, https://lw.xinhuanet.com/20241021/8a1493f85c7249819ea1299c747f7bd2/c.html
  17. Neurotechnology for National Defense: the U.S. and China – The …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/neurotechnology-for-national-defense-the-u-s-and-china
  18. (PDF) Neurotechnology and International Security: Predicting Commercial and Military Adoption of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) in the US and China – ResearchGate, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358442746_Neurotechnology_and_International_Security_Predicting_Commercial_and_Military_Adoption_of_Brain-Computer_Interface_BCI_in_the_US_and_China
  19. Expert Paper: Strategic Considerations for Brain-Computer Interface Military R&D by Sydney Reis – Oxford Emerging Threats Group, accessed October 4, 2025, https://emergingthreats.co.uk/paper-strategic-considerations-for-brain-computer-interface-military-rd/
  20. China’s first invasive brain-computer interface clinical trial launched …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202506/1336164.shtml
  21. China self-develops brain-computer interface to bypass US tech sanctions, accessed October 4, 2025, https://techwireasia.com/2021/05/china-self-develops-brain-computer-interface-to-bypass-us-tech-sanctions/
  22. The Chinese Communist Party’s Military-Civil Fusion Policy – state.gov, accessed October 4, 2025, https://2017-2021.state.gov/military-civil-fusion/
  23. China Moves Ahead with Research into Brain-computer Interfaces – Chinese Academy of Sciences, accessed October 4, 2025, https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/cas_media/202508/t20250825_1051356.shtml
  24. China moves ahead with research into brain-computer interfaces – Chinadaily.com.cn, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202508/15/WS689e90cea310b236346f1c6e.html
  25. China Advances Human-Machine Fusion with Strategic Brain-Computer Interface Development – TMCnet VoIP, CRM, Call Center and Technology Blogs, accessed October 4, 2025, https://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/technology/china-advances-human-machine-fusion-with-strategic-brain-computer-interface-development.html
  26. China’s mysterious Brain Project aims to turn science fiction into a reality – YouTube, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ch9zs-ic0
  27. 547. Challenging Reality: Chinese Cognitive Warfare and the Fight …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/547-challenging-reality-chinese-cognitive-warfare-and-the-fight-to-hack-your-brain/
  28. SECTION 2: EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND MILITARY-CIVIL FUSION: ARTIFICIAL INTELLI- GENCE, NEW MATERIALS, AND NEW ENERGY, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Chapter%203%20Section%202%20-%20Emerging%20Technologies%20and%20Military-Civil%20Fusion%20-%20Artificial%20Intelligence%2C%20New%20Materials%2C%20and%20New%20Energy.pdf
  29. A group of Chinese researchers and clinical neurologists has made a new breakthrough in brain-computer interface technology, enabling 10 individuals to communicate complex Chinese sentences through their thoughts alone : r/Sino – Reddit, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/1mmk6bx/a_group_of_chinese_researchers_and_clinical/
  30. A New Step in China’s Military Reform > National Defense University …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/4157257/a-new-step-in-chinas-military-reform/
  31. China’s Informationised Combat Capabilities – MP-IDSA, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.idsa.in/publisher/comments/chinas-informationised-combat-capabilities
  32. China’s Strategic Support Force: A Force for a New Era – Digital Commons @ NDU, accessed October 4, 2025, https://digitalcommons.ndu.edu/china-strategic-perspectives/6/
  33. The PLA’s Strategic Support Force and AI Innovation – Brookings Institution, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-plas-strategic-support-force-and-ai-innovation-china-military-tech/
  34. China’s new Information Support Force – The International Institute for Strategic Studies, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/05/chinas-new-information-support-force/
  35. The Chinese Military’s New Information Support Force | CNA, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2024/08/chinese-information-support-force
  36. The Challenges Taiwan Faces in Cognitive Warfare and Its Impact on US–Taiwan Relations, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4171199/the-challenges-taiwan-faces-in-cognitive-warfare-and-its-impact-on-ustaiwan-rel/
  37. China’s Focus on the Brain Gives it an Edge in Cognitive Warfare, accessed October 4, 2025, https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/chinas-focus-on-the-brain-gives-it-an-edge-in-cognitive-warfare/
  38. ICS: Intrinsic Cognitive Security | DARPA, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/intrinsic-cognitive-security
  39. Intrinsic Cognitive Security (ICS) | Research Funding, accessed October 4, 2025, https://researchfunding.duke.edu/intrinsic-cognitive-security-ics
  40. The “Ins” and “Outs” of Cognitive Warfare: What’s the Next Move?, accessed October 4, 2025, https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/4217626/the-ins-and-outs-of-cognitive-warfare-whats-the-next-move/