QA网友讨论：为什么美国不和中国“热战”
正文翻译
Robert Vannrox
Former Operator at Office of Naval Intelligence (1981–2007)
前海军情报局职员(1981-2007)
Robert Vannrox
Former Operator at Office of Naval Intelligence (1981–2007)
前海军情报局职员(1981-2007)
Because the United States will lose very, VERY badly.
…
I suppose you don’t want to hear that answer. You want to hear, or read something that makes you feel good about yourself, or your life.
But, I hate to break the news to you, all indications are quite clear. The United States would lose.
All RAND studies say so.
All of the American War Colleges say so.
Historical comparisons indicate that this will be the case.
Social predictions say so.
Even remote viewing of the future say so.
因为美国将输得非常非常惨。
…
I suppose you don’t want to hear that answer. You want to hear, or read something that makes you feel good about yourself, or your life.
But, I hate to break the news to you, all indications are quite clear. The United States would lose.
All RAND studies say so.
All of the American War Colleges say so.
Historical comparisons indicate that this will be the case.
Social predictions say so.
Even remote viewing of the future say so.
因为美国将输得非常非常惨。
…
我猜你不想听到这个答案。你想听到或读到一些让你自己感觉良好的东西。
但是，我不想告诉你这个消息，所有迹象都表明。美国将会失败。
兰德公司的所有研究都是这样说的。
所有的美国战争学院都这么说。
历史对比表明情况将是这样。
社会预测是这样说的。
就连预言家也这么说。
我猜你不想听到这个答案。你想听到或读到一些让你自己感觉良好的东西。
但是，我不想告诉你这个消息，所有迹象都表明。美国将会失败。
兰德公司的所有研究都是这样说的。
所有的美国战争学院都这么说。
历史对比表明情况将是这样。
社会预测是这样说的。
就连预言家也这么说。
Oh.
It doesn’t sell newspapers, and it isn’t “sexy”. But it is the truth.
China is a fortress, with peer or above peer military capabilities. It has created a defensive umbrella that is lethal. It’s military is huge, well trained, and enormously armed. It is a nuclear armed nation, and any attacking nation should consider the massive nuclear Armageddon that could be unleashed on their home cities, and peoples.
As overwhelming as the evidence is, there are a small number of people that say something different. And since their conclusions make many people in the Weest feel good, their conclusions are repeated endlessly. Even though the documents are openly ridiculed inside the halls of the Pentagon.
哦。
它是为了不卖报纸，也不“性感”。但这是事实。
中国是一个堡垒，拥有同级别或高于同级别的军事能力。它创造了一个完美的国家防御系统。它的军队规模庞大，训练有素，装备精良。它是一个拥有核武器的国家，任何发动攻击的国家都应该考虑到大规模的核武器爆发的世界末日，这可能会对他们的家乡城市和人民产生影响。
尽管证据确凿，但仍有一小部分人持不同意见。由于他们的结论让许多西方人自我感觉良好，他们的结论被不断地重复。尽管这些文件在五角大楼的大厅里被公开嘲笑。
It doesn’t sell newspapers, and it isn’t “sexy”. But it is the truth.
China is a fortress, with peer or above peer military capabilities. It has created a defensive umbrella that is lethal. It’s military is huge, well trained, and enormously armed. It is a nuclear armed nation, and any attacking nation should consider the massive nuclear Armageddon that could be unleashed on their home cities, and peoples.
As overwhelming as the evidence is, there are a small number of people that say something different. And since their conclusions make many people in the Weest feel good, their conclusions are repeated endlessly. Even though the documents are openly ridiculed inside the halls of the Pentagon.
哦。
它是为了不卖报纸，也不“性感”。但这是事实。
中国是一个堡垒，拥有同级别或高于同级别的军事能力。它创造了一个完美的国家防御系统。它的军队规模庞大，训练有素，装备精良。它是一个拥有核武器的国家，任何发动攻击的国家都应该考虑到大规模的核武器爆发的世界末日，这可能会对他们的家乡城市和人民产生影响。
尽管证据确凿，但仍有一小部分人持不同意见。由于他们的结论让许多西方人自我感觉良好，他们的结论被不断地重复。尽管这些文件在五角大楼的大厅里被公开嘲笑。
Who writes these papers?
These are [1] military-industrial complex funded “think tanks”, and [2] politically-connected “Studies”.
In every instance, they promote the idea that if military and weapons spending is increased; GREATLY, that the United State would prevail in a “hot” war against China. It’s simply a matter of funding the right weapons systems, and placing them in the right locations.
You cannot argue that they have been unsuccessful. In fact the very opposite is true. These “reports” and “studies” have been very successful in increasing the United States federal budget to surpass the $30 trillion dollar mark.
If you believe that money solves all problems, then you will agree with these outliers. For as long as there are trees, the United States can simply print unlimited amounts of “green backs” to solve festering problems.
Otherwise, I suggest that you listen to RAND.
…
So it is up you to decide.
这些论文是谁写的?
这些是[1]军工联合体资助的“智库”，[2]与政治相关的“研究”。
在每一个例子中，他们都宣扬这样一种观点:如果军事和武器开支增加;很大程度上，美国将在一场针对中国的“热战”中获胜。这只是为了购买武器提供资金，并将其部署在正确的位置的问题。
你不能说他们不成功。事实上，情况正好相反。这些“报告”和“研究”非常成功地将美国联邦预算增加到30万亿美元以上。
如果你相信钱能解决所有问题，那么你就会同意这些异常增加的联邦预算。只要还有树，美国就可以无限量地印刷“绿色钞票”来解决日益恶化的问题。
否则，我建议你听兰德公司的。
These are [1] military-industrial complex funded “think tanks”, and [2] politically-connected “Studies”.
In every instance, they promote the idea that if military and weapons spending is increased; GREATLY, that the United State would prevail in a “hot” war against China. It’s simply a matter of funding the right weapons systems, and placing them in the right locations.
You cannot argue that they have been unsuccessful. In fact the very opposite is true. These “reports” and “studies” have been very successful in increasing the United States federal budget to surpass the $30 trillion dollar mark.
If you believe that money solves all problems, then you will agree with these outliers. For as long as there are trees, the United States can simply print unlimited amounts of “green backs” to solve festering problems.
Otherwise, I suggest that you listen to RAND.
…
So it is up you to decide.
这些论文是谁写的?
这些是[1]军工联合体资助的“智库”，[2]与政治相关的“研究”。
在每一个例子中，他们都宣扬这样一种观点:如果军事和武器开支增加;很大程度上，美国将在一场针对中国的“热战”中获胜。这只是为了购买武器提供资金，并将其部署在正确的位置的问题。
你不能说他们不成功。事实上，情况正好相反。这些“报告”和“研究”非常成功地将美国联邦预算增加到30万亿美元以上。
如果你相信钱能解决所有问题，那么你就会同意这些异常增加的联邦预算。只要还有树，美国就可以无限量地印刷“绿色钞票”来解决日益恶化的问题。
否则，我建议你听兰德公司的。
…
所以由你来决定。
所以由你来决定。
评论翻译
Jonah Chan
This is precisely what countries like China and Russia, among others, are attempting to counteract - the US's capacity to print money at will.
这正是中国和俄罗斯等国家试图抵制的——美国随意印钞的能力。
This is precisely what countries like China and Russia, among others, are attempting to counteract - the US's capacity to print money at will.
这正是中国和俄罗斯等国家试图抵制的——美国随意印钞的能力。
Toolmaker
That capacity only exists as long as the petro-dollar and the international community supports the USD. Once the USD loses international settlement ( reserve currency), it will ignite inflation in America like Germany in the 1920’s.
这种能力只有在石油美元和国际社会支持美元的情况下才存在。一旦美元失去国际结算(储备货币)，就会像20世纪20年代的德国一样引发美国的通货膨胀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That capacity only exists as long as the petro-dollar and the international community supports the USD. Once the USD loses international settlement ( reserve currency), it will ignite inflation in America like Germany in the 1920’s.
这种能力只有在石油美元和国际社会支持美元的情况下才存在。一旦美元失去国际结算(储备货币)，就会像20世纪20年代的德国一样引发美国的通货膨胀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Robert Vannrox
That is happening right now. Wait until the changes of the last three months start to make their impact.
这正在发生。过去三个月的变化开始产生影响。
That is happening right now. Wait until the changes of the last three months start to make their impact.
这正在发生。过去三个月的变化开始产生影响。
Keith
Nazis don’t believe they will lose because they are deluded and even if they will lose they have to destroy the other. Hitler would have killed every German because they failed him. Fascism in the US will destroy the world to save face if they are not stopped
纳粹不相信他们会输，因为他们被欺骗了，即使他们会输，他们也必须摧毁对方。希特勒会杀掉所有德国人，因为他们辜负了他。如果不加以阻止，美国的法西斯主义将摧毁世界以挽回颜面
Nazis don’t believe they will lose because they are deluded and even if they will lose they have to destroy the other. Hitler would have killed every German because they failed him. Fascism in the US will destroy the world to save face if they are not stopped
纳粹不相信他们会输，因为他们被欺骗了，即使他们会输，他们也必须摧毁对方。希特勒会杀掉所有德国人，因为他们辜负了他。如果不加以阻止，美国的法西斯主义将摧毁世界以挽回颜面
Chan
The United States has wasted too much money on military alliances, and not spent enough on economic ones.
The elephant in the room is, the average American does NOT want war with another superpower. WW2’s toll is plain to see.
Nor does the average Chinese, but when push comes to shove would you bet on the country with an individualist culture to want to do the actual fighting, or the one with a collectivist culture?
All war is wrong. But even if a government thinks a military strike against a superpower is a smart idea, would the citizens agree? A preemptive strike against Chinese territory is going to result in mayhem on the steps of Capitol Hill. The average American talks a big talk about bald eagles and machine guns online, but striking the biggest trade partner that makes all of our tech is a tough sell for us peasants.
We don’t want to admit it, but deep down, the Chinese-US “alliance” is now the most important in the world. Has been for decades.
美国在军事联盟上浪费了太多的钱，而在经济联盟上却花得不够。
房间里的大象是，普通美国人不希望与另一个超级大国发生战争。二战的代价显而易见。
普通中国人也不希望，但当事态发展到紧要关头时，你会对一个有个人主义文化的国家发动战争，还是一个有集体主义文化的国家?
所有的战争都是错误的。但是，即使政府认为对超级大国进行军事打击是一个明智的主意，公民会同意吗?对中国领土的先发制人的打击将导致国会山上的混乱。普通美国人在网上大谈特谈秃鹰和机关枪，但打击为我们提供所有技术的最大贸易伙伴对我们农民来说很难接受。
我们不想承认，但在内心深处，中美“联盟”是当今世界上最重要的。已经有几十年了。
The United States has wasted too much money on military alliances, and not spent enough on economic ones.
The elephant in the room is, the average American does NOT want war with another superpower. WW2’s toll is plain to see.
Nor does the average Chinese, but when push comes to shove would you bet on the country with an individualist culture to want to do the actual fighting, or the one with a collectivist culture?
All war is wrong. But even if a government thinks a military strike against a superpower is a smart idea, would the citizens agree? A preemptive strike against Chinese territory is going to result in mayhem on the steps of Capitol Hill. The average American talks a big talk about bald eagles and machine guns online, but striking the biggest trade partner that makes all of our tech is a tough sell for us peasants.
We don’t want to admit it, but deep down, the Chinese-US “alliance” is now the most important in the world. Has been for decades.
美国在军事联盟上浪费了太多的钱，而在经济联盟上却花得不够。
房间里的大象是，普通美国人不希望与另一个超级大国发生战争。二战的代价显而易见。
普通中国人也不希望，但当事态发展到紧要关头时，你会对一个有个人主义文化的国家发动战争，还是一个有集体主义文化的国家?
所有的战争都是错误的。但是，即使政府认为对超级大国进行军事打击是一个明智的主意，公民会同意吗?对中国领土的先发制人的打击将导致国会山上的混乱。普通美国人在网上大谈特谈秃鹰和机关枪，但打击为我们提供所有技术的最大贸易伙伴对我们农民来说很难接受。
我们不想承认，但在内心深处，中美“联盟”是当今世界上最重要的。已经有几十年了。
Yuri Ionov
“We don’t want to admit it, but deep down, the Chinese-US “alliance” is now the most important in the world. Has been for decades.” The Chinese were willing to work for US dollars as long as they could acquire technologies with them. After the US banned the transfer of the most advanced technologies the Chinese-US alliance ceased to exist..
我们不想承认，但在内心深处，中美“联盟”是当今世界上最重要的。已经有几十年了。”
中国人愿意为了美元而工作，只要他们可以用美元获得技术。在美国禁止转让最先进的技术后，中美联盟不复存在。
“We don’t want to admit it, but deep down, the Chinese-US “alliance” is now the most important in the world. Has been for decades.” The Chinese were willing to work for US dollars as long as they could acquire technologies with them. After the US banned the transfer of the most advanced technologies the Chinese-US alliance ceased to exist..
我们不想承认，但在内心深处，中美“联盟”是当今世界上最重要的。已经有几十年了。”
中国人愿意为了美元而工作，只要他们可以用美元获得技术。在美国禁止转让最先进的技术后，中美联盟不复存在。
Anthony Tan
The problem is, why do these people need to bash or go to war with another country in order to feel good about themselves? How about doing something positive to improve their own lives and leave the rest of the world alone?
问题是，为什么这些人需要为了自我感觉良好而与另一个国家开战?做一些积极的事情来改善他们自己的生活，不要管世界其他地方怎么样?
The problem is, why do these people need to bash or go to war with another country in order to feel good about themselves? How about doing something positive to improve their own lives and leave the rest of the world alone?
问题是，为什么这些人需要为了自我感觉良好而与另一个国家开战?做一些积极的事情来改善他们自己的生活，不要管世界其他地方怎么样?
Jorge Mazuela
An United States invasion of china would surely fail, but a Chinese invasion of the United States would also fail. Both sides are very well defended because of their geography. A war between the two would most likely be a battle of blockades and economics.
美国入侵中国肯定会失败，但中国入侵美国也会失败。由于双方的地理位置，双方都有很好的防守。两国之间的战争很可能是一场互相封锁和经济战。
An United States invasion of china would surely fail, but a Chinese invasion of the United States would also fail. Both sides are very well defended because of their geography. A war between the two would most likely be a battle of blockades and economics.
美国入侵中国肯定会失败，但中国入侵美国也会失败。由于双方的地理位置，双方都有很好的防守。两国之间的战争很可能是一场互相封锁和经济战。
Robert Vannrox
Yes. One in which the United States cannot win.
是的。一场美国赢不了的战争。
Yes. One in which the United States cannot win.
是的。一场美国赢不了的战争。
Out Spoken
Neither can China. The reality is that war will be pyrrhic.
中国也赢不了。现实是，战争将是得不偿失的。
Neither can China. The reality is that war will be pyrrhic.
中国也赢不了。现实是，战争将是得不偿失的。
Robert Vannrox
I agree. No one wins in a war.
Especial when two major powers duke it out.
我同意。战争中没有赢家。
尤其是当两个大国在争斗的时候。
I agree. No one wins in a war.
Especial when two major powers duke it out.
我同意。战争中没有赢家。
尤其是当两个大国在争斗的时候。
Henry Young
Quora is full of questions like this, thinking about war against China, destroy China, US will win, China is evil, defend Taiwan, …….etc. It shows how Americans have been brainwashed by US govt propaganda beyond recognition. They dont think, they just take what is being fed to them by the media.
这表明美国人是如何被美国政府的宣传洗脑的。他们不思考，他们只是接受媒体灌输给他们的东西。
Quora is full of questions like this, thinking about war against China, destroy China, US will win, China is evil, defend Taiwan, …….etc. It shows how Americans have been brainwashed by US govt propaganda beyond recognition. They dont think, they just take what is being fed to them by the media.
这表明美国人是如何被美国政府的宣传洗脑的。他们不思考，他们只是接受媒体灌输给他们的东西。
Mario Correia
You must be clairvoyant! Everyone thought that Russia conquered Ukraine in 3 days and that's what we see. Results only after the game is over.
你一定是明察秋毫的人，!每个人都认为俄罗斯在3天内征服了乌克兰，这就是我们所看到的。游戏结束后才有结果。
You must be clairvoyant! Everyone thought that Russia conquered Ukraine in 3 days and that's what we see. Results only after the game is over.
你一定是明察秋毫的人，!每个人都认为俄罗斯在3天内征服了乌克兰，这就是我们所看到的。游戏结束后才有结果。
Louie Lee
It was principally western media that promoted the 3 day claim.
主要是西方媒体宣传了3天的说法。
It was principally western media that promoted the 3 day claim.
主要是西方媒体宣传了3天的说法。
很赞 7
收藏