戰和兩難的國家安全戰略抉擇：中西兵學經典的智慧

孫子：「兵者，國之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。」翻閱人類千年的歷史，戰爭似乎是人類史上從不曾停止的現象，是以戰爭與和平是人類永恆的議題。但就引爆戰爭的關鍵而論，決策者的認知是舉足輕重的，而錯誤的認知更是具決定性。本研究嘗試從中西兵學文獻中「戰」、「和」之概念建立研究架構，闡明戰爭與和平的實質內涵，做為研究論證之基礎，分析理解戰爭與和平的本體論異同、戰爭和平的知識論異同，進行「戰爭與和平」的本體辯證邏輯。研究過程過發現中西兵學都有談「戰爭與和平」的本體，戰爭是有傷亡的武裝衝突，屬於客觀存在，戰爭是心理認知有武裝衝突的威脅，屬於主觀存在，主客觀存在都是談狀態，無論是古代、近代和現代等時期中西兵學和戰略家，論述之內容多以隨著戰爭傷亡或毀滅性而不輕起戰爭，以政治外交避戰、以慎戰來以戰止戰。最後結論，都是辯證邏輯，也就是戰爭與和平兩難，其間的戰略決策智慧： (一)求和不求戰，求戰為求和。 (二)和為常態，戰為變態。 (三)和為秩序，戰為失序。 (四)和戰抉擇端賴菁英一念之間。 (五)和戰邏輯端賴菁英權力謀略。 (六)避戰謀和是菁英應有的戰略目標。 (七)和為人民邏輯，戰為菁英邏輯。 (八)民主和平釋放戰和兩難，國內民主程序制約菁英以戰謀權。

關鍵字

戰爭；和平；國家安全；戰略抉擇；兵學經典智慧

並列摘要

Sunzi said: “The art of war is of vital importance to the State.It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.” Looking through the thousands of years of human history, war seems to be a never-ending phenomenon in human history, so war and peace are the eternal issues of human beings. But as far as the key to detonating a war is concerned, the cognition of decision makers is very important, and the wrong cognition is even more decisive. This study attempts to establish a research framework from the concepts of “war” and “peace” in Chinese and Western military science literature, and clarify the essence of war and peace as the basis for research and demonstration. Analyze and understand the ontological similarities and differences of war and peace, the epistemological similarities and differences of war and peace, and carry out the ontological dialectical logic of “war and peace”. During the research process, I found that both Chinese and Western military sciences talk about “war and peace”. War is an armed conflict with casualties, which is an objective existence. War is a psychological cognition of the threat of armed conflict, which is a subjective existence. Whether it is subjective or objective existence, or both are discussed in ancient, modern, or modern Chinese and Western military classics and strategists, the content of their discussions is mostly based on war casualties or destructiveness, not to start wars, to avoid wars through politics and diplomacy, and to end wars with prudent wars . The final conclusion is all dialectical logic, that is, the dilemma between war and peace with the wisdom of strategic choices : (1)Seeking peace is better than seeking war, seeking war is seeking for peace. (2)Peace is the normality, war is the abnormality. (3)Peace is order, war is disorder. (4)The choice of peace and war depends entirely on the mind of the elites. (5)The logic of peace and war depends entirely on elites’ power strategies. (6)Avoiding war and seeking peace is the strategic goal that elites should have. (7)Peace is the logic of the people, and war is the logic of the elites. (8)Democratic peace release the dilemma between peace and war, domestic democracy process conditioned the elites seeking war for power.