军坛网友比较中美俄欧各家航天科技实力，展望未来中俄乃至与印度间的航天合作前景（二）
正文翻译
Nutrient
Also not to forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
（接上半部分）
……同样不能忽视发射频率的问题。有俄罗斯参与，两国总的发射频率可能是中国独自搞项目的两倍——对于一个大型月球基地来说，多出来的这些发射次数将是非常重要的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Also not to forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
（接上半部分）
……同样不能忽视发射频率的问题。有俄罗斯参与，两国总的发射频率可能是中国独自搞项目的两倍——对于一个大型月球基地来说，多出来的这些发射次数将是非常重要的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
评论翻译
Richard Santos
would china trust russia to lunch it’s own prestige space hardware?
Russia’s Zarya module was constructed not by Russia but by the late soviet unx before it dissolved as an additional module for the Mir space station. Russia’s contribution was to repurpose inherited hardware for use in the ISS. Given the very spotty track record of Russian space endeavor with anything that was even partially developed after the dissolution of the USSR, I would not suppose Russia to be capable of developing a reliable follow on the Zarya today.
Also, keep in mind the only real collaborative joint space effort between china and russia up to today, the Fobos-Grunt mars mission, failed spectacularly because multiple elementary failures of Russian upper stage. Having many elementary systems fail does not lend confidence to Russian ability to make anything complex work with a reasonable number of tries.
The russian inability to get simple things it has done many times before working during actually mission contrasts sharply with the meticulous Chinese approach, which test the hell out of everything and then succeeds in acoompolishing multiple envelope pushing features simultaneously on the first try in space
One might say this culture difference is likely to make any serious collaborative effort between Rosocosmos and CNSA a marriage made in hell.
BTW, the russian space culture of not testing throughly before hand and accepting many mission failures actually dates to the very beginning of the Soviet Space program. So it is not something that even if Rosocomos shape up in the next 5 years, it is likely to completely move away from.
中国真的能放心让俄罗斯来大量发射自己昂贵无比的航天硬件设备吗？
俄罗斯的曙光舱（Zarya）可不是俄罗斯制造的，那是在苏联解体前，为和平号空间站设计制造的附加模块。俄罗斯的贡献，只是将苏联留下的这一遗产，搬到了国际空间站上。鉴于苏联解体后俄罗斯太空计划的表现，我不认为今天的俄罗斯还能开发出可靠的曙光舱后续型号。
还有，不要忘了，迄今为止中俄间唯一一次真正的太空合作——即萤火一号（由俄罗斯“福布斯－土壤（Fobos Grunt）”探测器搭载），就因为俄罗斯火箭上面级一系列基本功能故障而离奇地失败了。这无疑让我对俄罗斯人更没信心。
他们甚至做不到在一次实际任务执行前，先把自己已经使用过多次的某些基本装置调试好——这简直和中国人做事细致入微的习惯形成了极端反差。要知道，中国人常常是通过海量地测试一切可测试数据，然后在首次实际太空任务中就成功地让多个（新）系统、多种（新）功能同时正常工作。
至少在部分人看来，这种文化差异很可能导致俄联邦宇航局（ROSCOSMOS）和中国国家航天局之间开展的任何实质性合作，变成一场灾难般的联姻。
顺带说一句，俄罗斯人的航天文化——在实际上手前不爱进行彻底全面的测试、并似乎对大量任务失败容忍度极高——可以直接追溯到苏联太空计划早期。因此就算俄罗斯联邦航天局在未来五年里大力整顿一番，这种文化风气也很难被彻底移除。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
would china trust russia to lunch it’s own prestige space hardware?
Russia’s Zarya module was constructed not by Russia but by the late soviet unx before it dissolved as an additional module for the Mir space station. Russia’s contribution was to repurpose inherited hardware for use in the ISS. Given the very spotty track record of Russian space endeavor with anything that was even partially developed after the dissolution of the USSR, I would not suppose Russia to be capable of developing a reliable follow on the Zarya today.
Also, keep in mind the only real collaborative joint space effort between china and russia up to today, the Fobos-Grunt mars mission, failed spectacularly because multiple elementary failures of Russian upper stage. Having many elementary systems fail does not lend confidence to Russian ability to make anything complex work with a reasonable number of tries.
The russian inability to get simple things it has done many times before working during actually mission contrasts sharply with the meticulous Chinese approach, which test the hell out of everything and then succeeds in acoompolishing multiple envelope pushing features simultaneously on the first try in space
One might say this culture difference is likely to make any serious collaborative effort between Rosocosmos and CNSA a marriage made in hell.
BTW, the russian space culture of not testing throughly before hand and accepting many mission failures actually dates to the very beginning of the Soviet Space program. So it is not something that even if Rosocomos shape up in the next 5 years, it is likely to completely move away from.
中国真的能放心让俄罗斯来大量发射自己昂贵无比的航天硬件设备吗？
俄罗斯的曙光舱（Zarya）可不是俄罗斯制造的，那是在苏联解体前，为和平号空间站设计制造的附加模块。俄罗斯的贡献，只是将苏联留下的这一遗产，搬到了国际空间站上。鉴于苏联解体后俄罗斯太空计划的表现，我不认为今天的俄罗斯还能开发出可靠的曙光舱后续型号。
还有，不要忘了，迄今为止中俄间唯一一次真正的太空合作——即萤火一号（由俄罗斯“福布斯－土壤（Fobos Grunt）”探测器搭载），就因为俄罗斯火箭上面级一系列基本功能故障而离奇地失败了。这无疑让我对俄罗斯人更没信心。
他们甚至做不到在一次实际任务执行前，先把自己已经使用过多次的某些基本装置调试好——这简直和中国人做事细致入微的习惯形成了极端反差。要知道，中国人常常是通过海量地测试一切可测试数据，然后在首次实际太空任务中就成功地让多个（新）系统、多种（新）功能同时正常工作。
至少在部分人看来，这种文化差异很可能导致俄联邦宇航局（ROSCOSMOS）和中国国家航天局之间开展的任何实质性合作，变成一场灾难般的联姻。
顺带说一句，俄罗斯人的航天文化——在实际上手前不爱进行彻底全面的测试、并似乎对大量任务失败容忍度极高——可以直接追溯到苏联太空计划早期。因此就算俄罗斯联邦航天局在未来五年里大力整顿一番，这种文化风气也很难被彻底移除。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Nutrient
Yet Russia's Proton launchers are quite reliable; they have made access to the ISS routine. For many years, the only way for US astronauts to visit the ISS was to go Russia first. You like to laugh at the alleged Russian incompetence, but keep the Proton in mind -- it has an excellent record for reliability.
As I mentioned earlier about the moon base, let's not forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
但俄罗斯的质子火箭还是相当可靠的；它们已经是定期往返于国际空间站的运载工具。在过去很多年里，美国宇航员要上国际空间站唯一的途径，就是先去俄罗斯。你大可嘲笑你口中俄罗斯的“无能”，但你不能否认质子火箭——它在可靠性方面记录极佳。
比如我前面提到的为建立月球基地而不能不考虑的发射频次问题。在俄罗斯的参与下，可能可以把中国自身能承担的发射数量直接翻倍。这一发射增量对支撑一个大型月球基地将至关重要。
Yet Russia's Proton launchers are quite reliable; they have made access to the ISS routine. For many years, the only way for US astronauts to visit the ISS was to go Russia first. You like to laugh at the alleged Russian incompetence, but keep the Proton in mind -- it has an excellent record for reliability.
As I mentioned earlier about the moon base, let's not forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
但俄罗斯的质子火箭还是相当可靠的；它们已经是定期往返于国际空间站的运载工具。在过去很多年里，美国宇航员要上国际空间站唯一的途径，就是先去俄罗斯。你大可嘲笑你口中俄罗斯的“无能”，但你不能否认质子火箭——它在可靠性方面记录极佳。
比如我前面提到的为建立月球基地而不能不考虑的发射频次问题。在俄罗斯的参与下，可能可以把中国自身能承担的发射数量直接翻倍。这一发射增量对支撑一个大型月球基地将至关重要。
Richard Santos
As i said, the primary value of Russia in any space endeavor is a fleet of efficient boosters, and the soyuz capsule, inherited from the soviet unx.
both of these achieved their eventual reliability by being allowed to fail many times in actual service, bespeaking a cultural approach to reliability that differs sharply from those of CNSA.
我想我前面已经说过了，俄罗斯在任何联合太空任务中如果还有什么大的价值，也就只剩一批高性能发动机了，或许还有从苏联继承下来的联盟号飞船。
而这两样东西，都是通过前期粗放式地进行大量任务、承受多次失败后才最终换来的可靠性——而这完全是一种与中国国家航天局截然不同的“可靠性”认知文化。
As i said, the primary value of Russia in any space endeavor is a fleet of efficient boosters, and the soyuz capsule, inherited from the soviet unx.
both of these achieved their eventual reliability by being allowed to fail many times in actual service, bespeaking a cultural approach to reliability that differs sharply from those of CNSA.
我想我前面已经说过了，俄罗斯在任何联合太空任务中如果还有什么大的价值，也就只剩一批高性能发动机了，或许还有从苏联继承下来的联盟号飞船。
而这两样东西，都是通过前期粗放式地进行大量任务、承受多次失败后才最终换来的可靠性——而这完全是一种与中国国家航天局截然不同的“可靠性”认知文化。
Nutrient
Yet Russia's Proton launchers have remained reliable. If I were a cosmonaut or astronaut, I would certianly prefer to be launched by a Proton than by some flaky exploding SpaceX vehicle.
Russia could contribute far more than that. @plawolf mentioned low-g experience. I have added life support and doubled launch rate. Even if the Russians contributed only reliable launchers, that would be quite enough reason to partner with them: the launch is by far the most important step into space.
Nonsense. Early US launchers were famous for blowing up, and the Apollo 1 astronauts (Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee) burned to death; I doubt you would accuse the Americans of a cultural failing
然而你还是无法否定俄罗斯质子火箭的可靠性。如果我是一名航天员，我绝对宁可乘坐质子号，而不是动不动就炸成屑屑的SpaceX。
俄罗斯潜在的贡献价值也远不止这些，前面@plawolf已经提到他们大量的低重力环境经验，相应的生命维持系统，以及我说的发射次数翻倍！就算俄罗斯人只能提供一款可靠的火箭，这也足以构成把他们纳入合作的充分理由：火箭发射至今仍是人类进入太空最重要的一环。
至于文化风气什么的就是胡扯了。早期的美国火箭同样以动不动就爆炸闻名！我想你不会因为阿波罗1号的宇航员（维吉尔·格里森、爱德华·怀特、罗杰·查菲）被烧死就指责美国人“太空文化”有缺陷吧？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yet Russia's Proton launchers have remained reliable. If I were a cosmonaut or astronaut, I would certianly prefer to be launched by a Proton than by some flaky exploding SpaceX vehicle.
Russia could contribute far more than that. @plawolf mentioned low-g experience. I have added life support and doubled launch rate. Even if the Russians contributed only reliable launchers, that would be quite enough reason to partner with them: the launch is by far the most important step into space.
Nonsense. Early US launchers were famous for blowing up, and the Apollo 1 astronauts (Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee) burned to death; I doubt you would accuse the Americans of a cultural failing
然而你还是无法否定俄罗斯质子火箭的可靠性。如果我是一名航天员，我绝对宁可乘坐质子号，而不是动不动就炸成屑屑的SpaceX。
俄罗斯潜在的贡献价值也远不止这些，前面@plawolf已经提到他们大量的低重力环境经验，相应的生命维持系统，以及我说的发射次数翻倍！就算俄罗斯人只能提供一款可靠的火箭，这也足以构成把他们纳入合作的充分理由：火箭发射至今仍是人类进入太空最重要的一环。
至于文化风气什么的就是胡扯了。早期的美国火箭同样以动不动就爆炸闻名！我想你不会因为阿波罗1号的宇航员（维吉尔·格里森、爱德华·怀特、罗杰·查菲）被烧死就指责美国人“太空文化”有缺陷吧？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Richard Santos
early American launchers, when they were still mostly just a civilian face for the military ballistic missile programs, certainly did have the culture of let’s see what happens. But when the truly civilian side of US space program began to receive strong political and budgetary support, the culture of through exhaustive tests quickly took hold. That doesn’t mean there were no failures. Apollo one being one example. But the track record of high probability of 1 round success and relatively low probability of subsequent failure was impressive. Saturn 5, the most ambitious rocket attempted in that era or any other, succeeded on the first launch and never had a failure, because everything had been tested to death on the ground before the rocket was ever assembled. The soviet equivalent, the N-1, had a 100% failure rate. N-1’s complex first stage fuel distribution system had never been tested on the ground before the first launch. it blew up and destroyed the rocket.
yes, if the soviets didn’t give up, I am sure after a few more failures they would eventually iron out all the bugs and by now the N-1 would be quite impressively reliable. but the difference in early failure rate still illustrate the difference in engineering culture.
The chinese, if anything, is much more methodical and painstaking than NASA.
早期的美国火箭装置，当它们还只是军用弹道导弹的一个民用化分支时，当然也存在那种“行或不行先试试看”的风气。但当美国太空计划真正作为一项非军事工程开始获得强大的政治和预算支持后，“全面彻底测试验收”的文化很快就确立起来了。当然这并不意味着不发生事故。但就一次（首次）成功率、连续发射失败概率等历史记录而言，他们的表现令人印象深刻。例如，土星5号火箭——人类有史以来最具雄心的一款巨型火箭——首次发射即成功，并且此后发射从未失败——正是得益于在火箭组装发射前，它的每一部分都已经通过了细致到不能再细致的地面测试。与之相比，苏联的N-1火箭，发射成功率则是0%（共4次试射全部失败，1976年取消）！N-1火箭错综复杂的第一级燃料分配系统，竟然在首次发射前从未进行过地面测试！它在发射时爆炸并摧毁了整个火箭。
没错，如果苏联人没有放弃N-1火箭，我相信在足够多次失败之后，他们最终能解决所有问题；今天的N-1火箭也将可能非常可靠。但早期失败率的巨大反差，仍能说明两国工程文化的不同。
如果把中国人也加入进来比较的话，那么他们只会比美国宇航局更有条理、更勤奋。
early American launchers, when they were still mostly just a civilian face for the military ballistic missile programs, certainly did have the culture of let’s see what happens. But when the truly civilian side of US space program began to receive strong political and budgetary support, the culture of through exhaustive tests quickly took hold. That doesn’t mean there were no failures. Apollo one being one example. But the track record of high probability of 1 round success and relatively low probability of subsequent failure was impressive. Saturn 5, the most ambitious rocket attempted in that era or any other, succeeded on the first launch and never had a failure, because everything had been tested to death on the ground before the rocket was ever assembled. The soviet equivalent, the N-1, had a 100% failure rate. N-1’s complex first stage fuel distribution system had never been tested on the ground before the first launch. it blew up and destroyed the rocket.
yes, if the soviets didn’t give up, I am sure after a few more failures they would eventually iron out all the bugs and by now the N-1 would be quite impressively reliable. but the difference in early failure rate still illustrate the difference in engineering culture.
The chinese, if anything, is much more methodical and painstaking than NASA.
早期的美国火箭装置，当它们还只是军用弹道导弹的一个民用化分支时，当然也存在那种“行或不行先试试看”的风气。但当美国太空计划真正作为一项非军事工程开始获得强大的政治和预算支持后，“全面彻底测试验收”的文化很快就确立起来了。当然这并不意味着不发生事故。但就一次（首次）成功率、连续发射失败概率等历史记录而言，他们的表现令人印象深刻。例如，土星5号火箭——人类有史以来最具雄心的一款巨型火箭——首次发射即成功，并且此后发射从未失败——正是得益于在火箭组装发射前，它的每一部分都已经通过了细致到不能再细致的地面测试。与之相比，苏联的N-1火箭，发射成功率则是0%（共4次试射全部失败，1976年取消）！N-1火箭错综复杂的第一级燃料分配系统，竟然在首次发射前从未进行过地面测试！它在发射时爆炸并摧毁了整个火箭。
没错，如果苏联人没有放弃N-1火箭，我相信在足够多次失败之后，他们最终能解决所有问题；今天的N-1火箭也将可能非常可靠。但早期失败率的巨大反差，仍能说明两国工程文化的不同。
如果把中国人也加入进来比较的话，那么他们只会比美国宇航局更有条理、更勤奋。
gelgoog
Ever heard the expression "if it isn't broke don't fix it"? The modern Soyuz 2 rocket has had major changes where it matters. It has fully digital avionics, and it has a staged combustion upper stage engine to increase performance. It also has an enlarged shroud to deliver larger volume commercial payloads. The modern Soyuz capsule also has fully digital avionics and larger usable internal volume. Lockheed had to buy Russian engines because they could not manufacture anything better. Do you really think they pay the Russians out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Russia in 2019 did 25 launches and the USA did 21 launches.
有没有听过这句老话：“东西没有坏，就别急着修”？如今的联盟-2火箭在一些关键技术上进行了重大升级，它拥有全数字化航空电子设备，并配备了分级燃烧的高性能发动机。它还有一个放大的整流罩，以提供更大体积的商业有效载荷。
新版的联盟号太空舱同样升级了全数字化航天电子设备，拥有更大的可用内部体积。洛克希德仍不得不购买俄罗斯发动机，因为他们自己造不出更好的。你难道认为他们是看到俄罗斯太穷才好心付钱给他们？
2019年，俄罗斯成功进行了25次航天发射，美国只进行了21次。
Ever heard the expression "if it isn't broke don't fix it"? The modern Soyuz 2 rocket has had major changes where it matters. It has fully digital avionics, and it has a staged combustion upper stage engine to increase performance. It also has an enlarged shroud to deliver larger volume commercial payloads. The modern Soyuz capsule also has fully digital avionics and larger usable internal volume. Lockheed had to buy Russian engines because they could not manufacture anything better. Do you really think they pay the Russians out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Russia in 2019 did 25 launches and the USA did 21 launches.
有没有听过这句老话：“东西没有坏，就别急着修”？如今的联盟-2火箭在一些关键技术上进行了重大升级，它拥有全数字化航空电子设备，并配备了分级燃烧的高性能发动机。它还有一个放大的整流罩，以提供更大体积的商业有效载荷。
新版的联盟号太空舱同样升级了全数字化航天电子设备，拥有更大的可用内部体积。洛克希德仍不得不购买俄罗斯发动机，因为他们自己造不出更好的。你难道认为他们是看到俄罗斯太穷才好心付钱给他们？
2019年，俄罗斯成功进行了25次航天发射，美国只进行了21次。
anzha
China and Russia are seeking partners to join their moon effort
Should India join the Russo-Chinese lunar base?
中国和俄罗斯正在寻找其它合作伙伴加入他们的登月计划。
你们认为印度是否应该参与中-俄月球基地项目？
China and Russia are seeking partners to join their moon effort
Should India join the Russo-Chinese lunar base?
中国和俄罗斯正在寻找其它合作伙伴加入他们的登月计划。
你们认为印度是否应该参与中-俄月球基地项目？
plawolf
OH HELL NO
千万不要！
OH HELL NO
千万不要！
Richard Santos
India is even less likely than Russia to be willing to contribute what will de facto be a primarily Chinese endeavor. India also has less to contribute than even Russia. So it seems unlikely China will see any value in making any sort of concession to bring India onboard.
The only way India will participate is if there is some improbable seismic shift in India’s geopolitical outlook, and China feels india could be pried away from the American into the Chinese camp, in some Chinese equivalent of Nixon going to China.
But for India to participate would be a statement of fuck you from India to the US. India is in no position to make such a statement now or in the foreseeable future. While India may resent being treated high handedly and transactionally by the US, India fears anything China gains in the long run must be India’s loss.
相比俄罗斯，印度更不可能情愿为这种实际上就是中国主导的项目做贡献。何况就算想，印度的价值恐怕还远不及俄罗斯。因此，中国似乎不太可能作出任何让步以谋求印度的参与，这看不出任何意义。
让印度参与的唯一可能是，如果印度的地缘政治前景发生某种（不大可能发生的）地震式变化，让中国感觉到有可能把它从美国那边拉到自己的阵营来——就像当年尼克松拉拢中国那样。
但对印度来说，如果能参与中俄主导的太空计划，就如同对美国大喊一声“去你M的”。印度在可预见的未来，能对美国如此硬气的机会恐怕都不多。不过呢，虽然印度可能会因美国对待它时的高压态度心怀不满，但毕竟印度更担心的仍然是中国——从长远看，中国获得的任何收益，似乎都相当于“印度的等量损失”。
India is even less likely than Russia to be willing to contribute what will de facto be a primarily Chinese endeavor. India also has less to contribute than even Russia. So it seems unlikely China will see any value in making any sort of concession to bring India onboard.
The only way India will participate is if there is some improbable seismic shift in India’s geopolitical outlook, and China feels india could be pried away from the American into the Chinese camp, in some Chinese equivalent of Nixon going to China.
But for India to participate would be a statement of fuck you from India to the US. India is in no position to make such a statement now or in the foreseeable future. While India may resent being treated high handedly and transactionally by the US, India fears anything China gains in the long run must be India’s loss.
相比俄罗斯，印度更不可能情愿为这种实际上就是中国主导的项目做贡献。何况就算想，印度的价值恐怕还远不及俄罗斯。因此，中国似乎不太可能作出任何让步以谋求印度的参与，这看不出任何意义。
让印度参与的唯一可能是，如果印度的地缘政治前景发生某种（不大可能发生的）地震式变化，让中国感觉到有可能把它从美国那边拉到自己的阵营来——就像当年尼克松拉拢中国那样。
但对印度来说，如果能参与中俄主导的太空计划，就如同对美国大喊一声“去你M的”。印度在可预见的未来，能对美国如此硬气的机会恐怕都不多。不过呢，虽然印度可能会因美国对待它时的高压态度心怀不满，但毕竟印度更担心的仍然是中国——从长远看，中国获得的任何收益，似乎都相当于“印度的等量损失”。
weig2000
In any case, I doubt India would seek to join the joint China-Russia program given the state of relationship between India and China and India's perception that it is a strategic competitor with China in every front. China would probably be receptive to India joining the program, not so much to look for contribution either financially or technically; it would be mostly political and diplomatic.
鉴于中印关系的现状以及印度“认定”中国在几乎所有方面都是它的战略竞争对手，想遍一切可能场境我都不信印度会寻求加入中俄太空计划。中国倒是有可能接受印度加入该项目（如果印度申请的话），不是为了寻求财政和技术上的“印度贡献”，而主要是地缘政治和外交上的考虑。
In any case, I doubt India would seek to join the joint China-Russia program given the state of relationship between India and China and India's perception that it is a strategic competitor with China in every front. China would probably be receptive to India joining the program, not so much to look for contribution either financially or technically; it would be mostly political and diplomatic.
鉴于中印关系的现状以及印度“认定”中国在几乎所有方面都是它的战略竞争对手，想遍一切可能场境我都不信印度会寻求加入中俄太空计划。中国倒是有可能接受印度加入该项目（如果印度申请的话），不是为了寻求财政和技术上的“印度贡献”，而主要是地缘政治和外交上的考虑。
ougoah
India does indeed consider any gain/progress China makes is at their loss because they see China as their number 1/2 adversary tied with Pakistan but Pakistan is a lower existential threat (in case of actual war). Therefore any gain your main enemy makes of course puts you at a greater gap. The chauvinistic Hindutva bhakts despise this, ignore, deny, self-delude, re-interpret, and dismiss all this, depending on the individual. Their state is thoroughly incompetent and wouldn't know how to even chase its own tail effectively. So there are layers of how and why India is not a fitting partner on any important cooperation because of government incompetence and an almost homogenous intolerance and hatred for anything China.
印度还真是把任何中国取得的进步，都看作是自己的损失了。他们把中国视为和巴基斯坦同等优先的首要敌人，而巴基斯坦（在实战中）的威胁又低得多。因此，主要敌人获得的任何收益当然都会使你处于更落后的境地。
那些虔诚的沙文主义印度教信徒们痛恨这一点，他们无视、否认中国的任何进步，自欺欺人地对这一切进行各求心安式的“重新解读”。他们的国家则表现出彻头彻尾的无能，甚至连“瞎忙活、白做工”的事都毫无效率。综上，既有政府的绝对无能，又有个体层面上普遍的对“中国的一切”近乎同质性的排斥、憎恨，在任何重大合作领域，印度都绝对不是中国理想的伙伴。
India does indeed consider any gain/progress China makes is at their loss because they see China as their number 1/2 adversary tied with Pakistan but Pakistan is a lower existential threat (in case of actual war). Therefore any gain your main enemy makes of course puts you at a greater gap. The chauvinistic Hindutva bhakts despise this, ignore, deny, self-delude, re-interpret, and dismiss all this, depending on the individual. Their state is thoroughly incompetent and wouldn't know how to even chase its own tail effectively. So there are layers of how and why India is not a fitting partner on any important cooperation because of government incompetence and an almost homogenous intolerance and hatred for anything China.
印度还真是把任何中国取得的进步，都看作是自己的损失了。他们把中国视为和巴基斯坦同等优先的首要敌人，而巴基斯坦（在实战中）的威胁又低得多。因此，主要敌人获得的任何收益当然都会使你处于更落后的境地。
那些虔诚的沙文主义印度教信徒们痛恨这一点，他们无视、否认中国的任何进步，自欺欺人地对这一切进行各求心安式的“重新解读”。他们的国家则表现出彻头彻尾的无能，甚至连“瞎忙活、白做工”的事都毫无效率。综上，既有政府的绝对无能，又有个体层面上普遍的对“中国的一切”近乎同质性的排斥、憎恨，在任何重大合作领域，印度都绝对不是中国理想的伙伴。
Richard Santos
Having had much contact with the Indian diaspora, I can say there is no homogenous intolerance or hatred for anything chinese. Amongst the particularly stridently nationalistic, there is a sense that India and China is locked in a zero sum game and China is the more ruthless, cohesive and disciplined player, therefore india must seize any opportunity to avoid falling behind. But amongst much of the educated class, there is respect and admiration of Chinese accomplishment, and jealousy.
In many ways, Indians, like the Chinese, tend to take a longer view than is prent amongst Americans. But uncontrolled media makes it more attractive for the politically opportunistic in the Indian ruling class to appeal to the rash, loud, easily excitable, here thinking and emotionally impulsive elements that is present in any society, and allow such appeal to drive action and policy beyond what might be considered prudent boundaries. The political opinion in India feels india has room to maneuver in a world where the US and China are antagonistic because US can give india a lot, and in the long run the US needs India at least as much as India needs the US.
There are opinions in India that says allying with the US against China is nonetheless dangerous, because the US can be fickle and transactional in how it treats India. If one day another serious threat to US hegemony arose elsewhere, the US may decide an rapprochement with China is in its better interest, so leaving an india that had been hostile to China on America’s behalf out in the cold. But prevailing opinion in India seem to attribute china’s faster growth over the last 4 decades to China having received a lot from the US as a result of China siding with the US during the last decade of the Cold War. Therefore just as China could bootstrap herself up during the last 40myears by being an de facto American ally during an US - USSR confrontation, so india could bootstrap herself up by being an American ally during an US - China confrontation.
我和印度侨民有过很多接触，我并没有观察到你所说的“对中国的一切近乎一致的排斥、憎恨”。只是在部分民族主义情绪特别强的人中间，有一种认为印度和中国被锁定在了一场零和游戏里、而中国是一个更无情却更有凝聚力和纪律性玩家的感觉——因此印度必须抓住一切可能机会以避免落后。但在他们受过良好教育的阶层中的许多人那里，你都能感觉到他们对中国人成就的尊重和钦佩，甚至有那么点嫉妒。
在许多方面，印度人和中国人一样，倾向于比美国人更长远地看待问题。但或许是在印度国内，不受控的媒体让其统治阶级中那些政治机会主义者更容易出头，他们通过煽动任何社会中都必然存在的无脑、嚣张、情绪化、易冲动的那部分人，谋求其助推自己的个人目标或政见，突破那些谨慎、合理的政治边界。然而印度普遍的政治观点还是，在中美相互敌对的世界里，印度才有回旋余地，美国可以提供给印度的更多，从长远看，美国需要印度至少和印度需要美国的程度相当。
但印度也仍有观点认为，与美国结盟对抗中国是危险的，因为美国对待印度的方式可能变化无常、阴晴不定。如果有一天，美国霸权主义的另一个严重威胁出现在地球另一头，美国可能又会决定和中国恢复关系，并把曾经代表美国利益与中国正面冲突的印度晾在一边。倒是有一种看法（在印度）挺普遍的，即似乎中国过去40年的快速增长，恰恰得益于中国在冷战最后十年选择站到了美国一边，从美国那里得到了诸多好处——因此，印度当然也可以通过在美中对抗中站到美国一边，实现类似的“自我提升”。
Having had much contact with the Indian diaspora, I can say there is no homogenous intolerance or hatred for anything chinese. Amongst the particularly stridently nationalistic, there is a sense that India and China is locked in a zero sum game and China is the more ruthless, cohesive and disciplined player, therefore india must seize any opportunity to avoid falling behind. But amongst much of the educated class, there is respect and admiration of Chinese accomplishment, and jealousy.
In many ways, Indians, like the Chinese, tend to take a longer view than is prent amongst Americans. But uncontrolled media makes it more attractive for the politically opportunistic in the Indian ruling class to appeal to the rash, loud, easily excitable, here thinking and emotionally impulsive elements that is present in any society, and allow such appeal to drive action and policy beyond what might be considered prudent boundaries. The political opinion in India feels india has room to maneuver in a world where the US and China are antagonistic because US can give india a lot, and in the long run the US needs India at least as much as India needs the US.
There are opinions in India that says allying with the US against China is nonetheless dangerous, because the US can be fickle and transactional in how it treats India. If one day another serious threat to US hegemony arose elsewhere, the US may decide an rapprochement with China is in its better interest, so leaving an india that had been hostile to China on America’s behalf out in the cold. But prevailing opinion in India seem to attribute china’s faster growth over the last 4 decades to China having received a lot from the US as a result of China siding with the US during the last decade of the Cold War. Therefore just as China could bootstrap herself up during the last 40myears by being an de facto American ally during an US - USSR confrontation, so india could bootstrap herself up by being an American ally during an US - China confrontation.
我和印度侨民有过很多接触，我并没有观察到你所说的“对中国的一切近乎一致的排斥、憎恨”。只是在部分民族主义情绪特别强的人中间，有一种认为印度和中国被锁定在了一场零和游戏里、而中国是一个更无情却更有凝聚力和纪律性玩家的感觉——因此印度必须抓住一切可能机会以避免落后。但在他们受过良好教育的阶层中的许多人那里，你都能感觉到他们对中国人成就的尊重和钦佩，甚至有那么点嫉妒。
在许多方面，印度人和中国人一样，倾向于比美国人更长远地看待问题。但或许是在印度国内，不受控的媒体让其统治阶级中那些政治机会主义者更容易出头，他们通过煽动任何社会中都必然存在的无脑、嚣张、情绪化、易冲动的那部分人，谋求其助推自己的个人目标或政见，突破那些谨慎、合理的政治边界。然而印度普遍的政治观点还是，在中美相互敌对的世界里，印度才有回旋余地，美国可以提供给印度的更多，从长远看，美国需要印度至少和印度需要美国的程度相当。
但印度也仍有观点认为，与美国结盟对抗中国是危险的，因为美国对待印度的方式可能变化无常、阴晴不定。如果有一天，美国霸权主义的另一个严重威胁出现在地球另一头，美国可能又会决定和中国恢复关系，并把曾经代表美国利益与中国正面冲突的印度晾在一边。倒是有一种看法（在印度）挺普遍的，即似乎中国过去40年的快速增长，恰恰得益于中国在冷战最后十年选择站到了美国一边，从美国那里得到了诸多好处——因此，印度当然也可以通过在美中对抗中站到美国一边，实现类似的“自我提升”。
ougoah
It's strange. I too have quite a lot of contact with Indian diaspora living in a western nation and my experience isn't that.
When I mean intolerance and hatred for anything Chinese, I'm not only talking about products... which btw India has little to no choice over in the short to medium term because... economics 101. Joining China in any important project is certainly going to meet more opposition from Indians than it would from Chinese (as intense as that would also be).
I have regularly encountered "fair minded" lol Indians who absolutely cannot stand China being talked about in ANY sort of positivity. It's almost illegal to and any discussion that comes up where "oh China has done well here with this" is always met with "no way they're awful and that's all stolen!/copied!/fake propaganda!" No Chinese person ever be bothered passionately opposing any conversation that includes India in a positive light. They just don't know or don't care enough about it. Maybe a chauvinist/ pro China person would only if that discussion also involved China but if it's just "India has pretty good space capabilities" no Chinese person would feel the need to spread total lies and unfounded nonsense about how India is evil and ought to be feared while also put down.
An example from this month would be an interaction with an Indian receptionist who wasn't even a part of the conversation by the way. The conversation was between a friend of mine and her husband who was talking positively about his son's education in China (they are not Chinese but live there) and lamenting about how poor the educational standard is in his native country in comparison to what his son received in China. The receptionist felt the need to then say "why don't you guys stay in China then if it's so good there".
This line is pretty typical. No Chinese person could be bothered saying that to an Indian. The intense dislike for China isn't only promoted by media and propaganda .
这就怪了。我也接触过很多生活在西方的印度侨民，我的经验可不是这样。
我所说的“对‘中国的一切’近乎同质性的排斥、憎恨”，可不仅仅指中国商品……况且就商品而言，印度至少在中短期内，几乎没有别的选择……这是基本经济常识。和中国共同参与任何重大项目，在印度国内引起的反对声音肯定远远大于在中国国内。
我经常遇到一些所谓“公正客观的印度人”，他们绝对受不了任何积极赞扬中国的谈话。任何关于“哦，中国在这方面做得挺好”的讨论总会遇到“不可能，他们糟透了，这些都是偷来的/虚假宣传！”相比之下，我还没碰到过任何一个中国人，会如此热情地对有关印度的讨论发表类似的反对意见。他们要么不清楚印度的情况到底怎样，要么根本不关心。或许只有在话题牵涉中国时，比较沙文主义的中国人支持中国的人才会参与进来；但如果话题仅仅是“印度的太空能力相当不错”，那就不会有中国人觉得有必要发表一些类似“印度多么多么邪恶、应该对它感到担心、应该对它进行遏制”的话。
以我这个月刚碰到的一件事为例：那是我们遇到的一名印度接待员，顺便说一句，我们本来甚至并没有和这名接待对话。只是我的一位朋友在和她丈夫聊天，她积极地称赞她儿子在中国接受的教育（他们不是中国人，但居住在那儿）并哀叹他们自己国家的教育水平和他们儿子在中国接受的教育水平相比多么落后。此时，该印度接待员似乎是突然感到有必要说些什么：“既然中国这么好，你们为什么不留在中国？”
非常典型的印度式对白！没有一个中国人会费心去在一场关于印度的讨论中，插上这样一句话。对中国的强烈厌恶，绝不仅仅是媒体和官方宣传的结果。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It's strange. I too have quite a lot of contact with Indian diaspora living in a western nation and my experience isn't that.
When I mean intolerance and hatred for anything Chinese, I'm not only talking about products... which btw India has little to no choice over in the short to medium term because... economics 101. Joining China in any important project is certainly going to meet more opposition from Indians than it would from Chinese (as intense as that would also be).
I have regularly encountered "fair minded" lol Indians who absolutely cannot stand China being talked about in ANY sort of positivity. It's almost illegal to and any discussion that comes up where "oh China has done well here with this" is always met with "no way they're awful and that's all stolen!/copied!/fake propaganda!" No Chinese person ever be bothered passionately opposing any conversation that includes India in a positive light. They just don't know or don't care enough about it. Maybe a chauvinist/ pro China person would only if that discussion also involved China but if it's just "India has pretty good space capabilities" no Chinese person would feel the need to spread total lies and unfounded nonsense about how India is evil and ought to be feared while also put down.
An example from this month would be an interaction with an Indian receptionist who wasn't even a part of the conversation by the way. The conversation was between a friend of mine and her husband who was talking positively about his son's education in China (they are not Chinese but live there) and lamenting about how poor the educational standard is in his native country in comparison to what his son received in China. The receptionist felt the need to then say "why don't you guys stay in China then if it's so good there".
This line is pretty typical. No Chinese person could be bothered saying that to an Indian. The intense dislike for China isn't only promoted by media and propaganda .
这就怪了。我也接触过很多生活在西方的印度侨民，我的经验可不是这样。
我所说的“对‘中国的一切’近乎同质性的排斥、憎恨”，可不仅仅指中国商品……况且就商品而言，印度至少在中短期内，几乎没有别的选择……这是基本经济常识。和中国共同参与任何重大项目，在印度国内引起的反对声音肯定远远大于在中国国内。
我经常遇到一些所谓“公正客观的印度人”，他们绝对受不了任何积极赞扬中国的谈话。任何关于“哦，中国在这方面做得挺好”的讨论总会遇到“不可能，他们糟透了，这些都是偷来的/虚假宣传！”相比之下，我还没碰到过任何一个中国人，会如此热情地对有关印度的讨论发表类似的反对意见。他们要么不清楚印度的情况到底怎样，要么根本不关心。或许只有在话题牵涉中国时，比较沙文主义的中国人支持中国的人才会参与进来；但如果话题仅仅是“印度的太空能力相当不错”，那就不会有中国人觉得有必要发表一些类似“印度多么多么邪恶、应该对它感到担心、应该对它进行遏制”的话。
以我这个月刚碰到的一件事为例：那是我们遇到的一名印度接待员，顺便说一句，我们本来甚至并没有和这名接待对话。只是我的一位朋友在和她丈夫聊天，她积极地称赞她儿子在中国接受的教育（他们不是中国人，但居住在那儿）并哀叹他们自己国家的教育水平和他们儿子在中国接受的教育水平相比多么落后。此时，该印度接待员似乎是突然感到有必要说些什么：“既然中国这么好，你们为什么不留在中国？”
非常典型的印度式对白！没有一个中国人会费心去在一场关于印度的讨论中，插上这样一句话。对中国的强烈厌恶，绝不仅仅是媒体和官方宣传的结果。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 5
收藏