|
|
本帖最后由 godstear4u 于 2011-9-26 20:13 编辑
【中文标题】本周战报：论中国
【原文标题】This Week at War: Let's Talk About China
【登载媒体】外交政策
【来源网址】http://www.foreignpolicy.com/art ... ts_talk_about_china
【原文翻译】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-3201062-1-1.html
【译 者】 godstear4u
【翻译方式】人工
【声 明】欢迎分享转载，分享转载时请注明译者和来源网址 bbs.m4.cn
【译 文】
DR. KUCHBHI
11:38 PM ET
September 23, 2011
Paper tiger
When the Chinese feel they need to contain a rival, they have no compunctions about providing missiles like the M11, blueprints on how to make your own nuke and other paraphernalia to countries like Pakistan.
当中国人为他们需要控制一场竞争的局势的时候，他们会毫不犹豫地提供像M11导弹，教你如何造核武器的蓝图等设备给巴基斯坦这样的国家
While we sit and wonder what Taiwan could do to help itself. :-)
而我们却坐在这里冷眼旁观台湾如何自救:-)
No points for guessing who's going to win this one!!!
谁将最终胜利毫无悬念
REPLY
ALANCHRISTOPHER
12:55 PM ET
September 24, 2011
Unilateral War
The US is defeating itself because China has chosen not to fight. The Chinese Defense Minister said on 8-1-2011, the 84th anniversary of the founding of the PLA, that China's military strategy is peace and prosperity. The Foreign Ministry issued a White Paper on 9-6-2011, claiming that "peaceful development is China's strategic choice to realize modernization, make itself strong and prosperous, and make more contributions to the progress of human civilization." As a former US Army Special Forces intelligence sergeant, I can add the following: to win a war is competence; to win a war without fighting that war is genius. The US is spending itself into destitution while China's economy grows. China downgraded US debt to A with a negative outlook on 8-3-2011, citing three reasons: the US plays too many costly super power games in too many countries; the US cannot raise taxes; and the US cannot cut enough from domestic spending to reduce its debt. In Special Forces, we learned that the economy pays for the war machine, and the economy develops and pays for the technological tools of the war machine. Is Aaron Friedberg going to donate all of the money required to pay off the US national debt? Is he going to pay for the US armed forces and for US defense technology needs? The US will not begin to address its debt and military finance issues until the fall of 2013. The next election will be in 2012; Congress convenes in 2013; and the new laws will take effect in the fall. This, however, depends on avoiding stalemate in the 2012 elections. This democrazy (spelling is correct) chose Bush and Cheney twice, Obama and Biden once, and stalemate in 2006 and 2010. We always knew that China would become the dominant power, but we hoped it would be in 2050, when most of us would be dead. Our many interventions since 2001 have bankrupted the US, China will pass the US much sooner, and we must accept the new reality that we have created for ourselves.
当中国选择不进行战争的时候美国自己已经输了。中国国防部在2011年8月1日——中国解放军建军84周年时说，中国的军事战略是和平与发展。外交部在2011年9月6日发布的白皮书中声明和平发展是中国实现现代化和自身繁荣富强并对人类文明进步做出贡献的战略选择。作为前美国海军陆战队特战情报员我能继续补充：赢得战争是人才，不战而胜是天才。美国挥霍无度越来越强而中国经济却在不断增长。中国在2011年8月3日将美债评级下调到A负面展望时使用了以下三个理由：美国在太多国家的霸权游戏中耗费过多，美国不能增加税收，美国不能削减足够的国内开销以降低国债。在特战队，我们学过经济要为战争机器以及他们使用的高科技武器装备买单，。阿龙佛雷德伯格准备捐掉所有必需的钱来偿还美国债吗？他准备为美国武装力量和国防技术需要买单么？美国直到2013年秋天才会陷入债务和军队财政的麻烦中。而最近的大选是在2012年；国会在2013年才集会；而新法律将在秋天生效。而这一切还是在12年大选避免出现困局的前提下。这样的免煮（谐音，意为疯狂民主）使布什和切尼两次当选，奥巴马和拜登一次当选，而在06年和10年美国陷入困境。我们都知道中国会变成统治性大国，我们本来希望这能延迟到2050年当我们大多数人都已过世的时候才发生。我们自2001年以来的许多军事干预措施把美国推向了破产，所以中国超越美国步伐大大加快，而我们不得不自食其果面对这新的一切。
REPLY
DODOBIRD
6:50 PM ET
September 24, 2011
nascent military threat to Middle East peace?
the upper banner caption read, ChangDu military region send Engineering Battalion to Lebanon for assitance;
上面的横幅上写着成都军区将工兵遣往篱笆嫩维和
- presumably under mandate of UN peacekeeping force, or possibly just to ingrate themselves w/ Arabs,
the right & left caption said, faithfully execute the mission, and help to maintain world peace!
也许是在联合国授权之下的维和行动，也许只是又在养一批阿拉伯白眼狼。左右两边的字幕写着：忠实履行使命，维护世界和平！
Gasp! what affrontry, no shame?
吁！多么冒犯，毫无羞耻之心吗？
REPLY
EZRA
5:51 AM ET
September 25, 2011
?
"He recommends ... reaffirming U.S. alliances in Asia."
他建议.........加强美国与亚洲盟国的关系
I would have said just the opposite. The US should, as gently as possible, withdraw from its east Asian alliances. Let Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, et. al., feel the fear of being exposed to a China that could defeat each of them piecemeal. Then they will do one of two things: acquiesce in Chinese hegemony, or band together to fight it. Which one they choose depends on how they judge the likelihood of winning. If they believe they are strong enough together to counterbalance China, they will do so; if they believe even their combined strength will not be sufficient, they will seek individual accommodations. At present, I would say the advantage lies with this hypothetical anti-China alliance, but that advantage is diminishing. The US must therefore implement this policy right away. The same policy pursued ten or twenty years from now may well have the opposite effect.
我的看法截然相反。美国应该尽可能温和地从他的亚洲联盟中撤回。让日本韩国越南等国家感受直面能将他们碾成碎片的中国的恐惧。然后他们将二选一：承认中国霸权，或者团结起来击败她。他们选哪一条路取决于他们对获胜几率的判断。如果他们认为他们团结起来足够强壮以抗衡中国，他们会立马这样做；如果他们认为即使他们团结起来依然不够强，它们会各自找归宿。现在，我认为优势在这假想的反华联盟这边，但优势正在消失。所以美国必须马上采取这样的措施。同样的措施放在10年20年后可能反而会有反作用
Having an explicit alliance with any country is really only a matter of convenience, of formalizing a relationship that already exists naturally. In the event of war, Japan et. al. will be forced to seek an American alliance if their own strength is insufficient. The trick is to arrange it so that if/when a general war breaks out, the US is not involved at first. Let China and an anti-Chinese alliance fight it out for a spell; thereafter, the US may become involved, if necessary. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of the current US "tripwire" policy.
与任何特定的国家结盟确实只是权宜之计，在现在已经形成的关系的基础上自然形成。战争发生，日本如果认为自身实力不够，将会寻求与美国结盟。用这样的计策的话如果战争发生美国不会直接卷入。让中国和反华联盟互相斗一会，之后如果必要美国再加以干预。当然这与目前美国的立即大肆报复的策略是截然相反
Of course, there is little hope for any constructive change as long as a leading contender for the presidency of the US makes foreign policy decisions based on what Zeus says, oh, wait, I mean Jehovah.
当然，只要美国总统的竞争者们还在如宙斯，哦不，我是说耶和华一般妇人之仁的话，那就不要对局势发生建设性变化寄予希望了
REPLY
SAIF UR REHMAN
12:21 PM ET
September 25, 2011
option for taiwan
Rather americans thinking options of strike,counter strike or preemptive strikes for taiwan, why dont Taiwanese people think for themselves that is it not better to combine with mainland rather be divided and give a chance for the foreigners to intervene? Afterall both mainland and taiwan are chinese.
REPLY
美国人在为台湾考虑进攻，反击，先发制人等各种选项，为什么台湾人就不从自己着想认为应该考虑接受国外干预而不与大陆结盟呢？毕竟大陆台湾的都是华人
XINGLONGNITE
1:24 AM ET
September 26, 2011
China policy is subject the US can't discuss in the open
对华政策是美国不能公开讨论的禁忌
The long stream of US policies toward china has neither been just nor moral. Had China just disappear like Iraq or Libya everthing would be alright to talk about. But China didn't. The more we discuss about China the more awkward and incoherent our policies toward China will become. So it's better to let everhthing be cloaked in a thick fog of mystry, so that one day it could be gradually undo or changed without raising much a fuss.
一直以来美国对华政策都既不正义也不道德。要是中国向伊拉克和利比亚一样消失这些讨论早就没必要了。我们对中国的讨论越多，我们的对华政策就会变得越笨拙和不连贯。所以最好还是让一些都隐匿在迷雾中，而终有一天一切将渐渐真相大白并且坐享其成
REPLY |
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-9-26 20:12
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
