不，美国无法“关闭”英国的核武器
正文翻译
(A Vanguard class submarine.)
（一艘前卫级潜艇。）
新闻：
No, the US can’t ‘switch off’ the UK’s nuclear weapons
不，美国无法“关闭”英国的核武器
不，美国无法“关闭”英国的核武器
(A Vanguard class submarine.)
（一艘前卫级潜艇。）
新闻：
On March 27th, The Conversation published an article by Dr. Becky Alexis-Martin of the University of Bradford, titled “The US has the power to switch off the UK’s nuclear subs – a big problem as Donald Trump becomes an unreliable partner.” The headline itself is bold—and deeply alarming.
3月27日，英国《对话》网站刊登了英国布拉德福德大学贝基·阿莱克斯-马丁博士的一篇题为《美国有能力关闭英国的核潜艇——随着特朗普成为一个不可靠的合作伙伴，这是个大问题》的文章。标题本身是大胆的，并且令人深感担忧。
3月27日，英国《对话》网站刊登了英国布拉德福德大学贝基·阿莱克斯-马丁博士的一篇题为《美国有能力关闭英国的核潜艇——随着特朗普成为一个不可靠的合作伙伴，这是个大问题》的文章。标题本身是大胆的，并且令人深感担忧。
It’s a headline designed to provoke concern—and it certainly does. But while the article touches on genuine long-term strategic questions, it also reinforces a dangerously misleading impression: that the United States holds real-time control over the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
这是一个旨在引起关注的标题——它确实做到了。但是，尽管这篇文章触及了真正的长期战略问题，但它也强化了一种危险的误导性印象：美国对英国的核威慑力量拥有实时控制权。
这是一个旨在引起关注的标题——它确实做到了。但是，尽管这篇文章触及了真正的长期战略问题，但它也强化了一种危险的误导性印象：美国对英国的核威慑力量拥有实时控制权。
It does not.
它没有。
它没有。
This is not just a theoretical issue of wording. When a piece opens with the line, “The US can, if it chooses, effectively switch off the UK’s nuclear deterrent,” it leaves little ambiguity. This framing implies a direct, present-day capability that simply does not exist.
这不仅仅是一个措辞的理论问题。当一篇文章以“如果美国愿意，它可以有效地关闭英国的核威慑力量”这句话开头时，它几乎没有留下任何含糊之处。这种框架暗示了一种直接的、当今的能力，而这种能力根本不存在。
这不仅仅是一个措辞的理论问题。当一篇文章以“如果美国愿意，它可以有效地关闭英国的核威慑力量”这句话开头时，它几乎没有留下任何含糊之处。这种框架暗示了一种直接的、当今的能力，而这种能力根本不存在。
Yes, the UK relies on American technology, logistics, and cooperation for the maintenance of its Trident missile system. But operational control? That remains exclusively with the UK. This is what defence officials and experts consistently refer to as operational independence.
是的，英国依靠美国的技术、后勤和合作来维护其三叉戟导弹系统。但是操作控制呢？只属于英国。这就是国防官员和专家一贯所说的作战独立性。
是的，英国依靠美国的技术、后勤和合作来维护其三叉戟导弹系统。但是操作控制呢？只属于英国。这就是国防官员和专家一贯所说的作战独立性。
Once a Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarine carrying Trident missiles sails from Faslane, it is under British command alone. It is submerged, undetectable, and capable of launching its nuclear payload solely on the order of the UK Prime Minister. There is no American “kill switch,” no joint code, no foreign veto.
一旦一艘载有三叉戟导弹的皇家海军前卫级潜艇从法斯兰起航，它就由英国单独指挥。它在水下，无法被探测到，只有在英国首相的命令下才能发射其有效载荷。不存在美国的“死亡开关”，不存在联合法规，不存在外国否决权。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
一旦一艘载有三叉戟导弹的皇家海军前卫级潜艇从法斯兰起航，它就由英国单独指挥。它在水下，无法被探测到，只有在英国首相的命令下才能发射其有效载荷。不存在美国的“死亡开关”，不存在联合法规，不存在外国否决权。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Even the article itself briefly acknowledges this reality: “The UK has some autonomy, as it is operationally independent and controls the decision to launch.” But that line is buried, and the broader narrative—from the headline down—undercuts it. Readers are left not with a nuanced understanding of allied cooperation and sovereign control, but with a sensational and incorrect impression of vulnerability to US political whims.
就连文章本身也简要地承认了这一现实：“英国有一定的自主权，因为它在运行上是独立的，并控制着发射的决定。”但这条线被掩盖了，从标题向下的更广泛的叙述削弱了它。读者没有对盟国合作和主权控制有细致入微的理解，而是产生了一种耸人听闻的错误印象，即容易受到美国政治突发奇想的影响。
就连文章本身也简要地承认了这一现实：“英国有一定的自主权，因为它在运行上是独立的，并控制着发射的决定。”但这条线被掩盖了，从标题向下的更广泛的叙述削弱了它。读者没有对盟国合作和主权控制有细致入微的理解，而是产生了一种耸人听闻的错误印象，即容易受到美国政治突发奇想的影响。
It’s important to separate structural reliance from operational dependence. The UK does lease Trident II D5 missiles from a shared US-UK pool and relies on US infrastructure for their maintenance. But these are long-term support arrangements, not immediate operational enablers. If US support were cut off tomorrow, the UK would retain the ability to launch for years, thanks to stockpiles, training, and independent systems.
将结构依赖与操作依赖分开是很重要的。英国确实从美英共享的导弹库中租用了三叉戟II D5导弹，并依赖美国的基础设施进行维护。但这些都是长期的支持安排，而不是立即的行动支持。如果明天美国的支持被切断，英国将保留多年的发射能力，这要归功于库存、训练和独立的系统。
将结构依赖与操作依赖分开是很重要的。英国确实从美英共享的导弹库中租用了三叉戟II D5导弹，并依赖美国的基础设施进行维护。但这些都是长期的支持安排，而不是立即的行动支持。如果明天美国的支持被切断，英国将保留多年的发射能力，这要归功于库存、训练和独立的系统。
The system is built to endure. As former Defence Secretary Philip Hammond made clear: “There is no veto in the hands of the Americans. The UK deterrent is fully operationally independent.”
这一体系是为持久而建立的。正如前国防大臣菲利普·哈蒙德明确表示的那样：“美国人手中没有否决权。英国的威慑力量是完全独立运作的。”
这一体系是为持久而建立的。正如前国防大臣菲利普·哈蒙德明确表示的那样：“美国人手中没有否决权。英国的威慑力量是完全独立运作的。”
Moreover, the UK’s warheads are designed and manufactured domestically, using UK scientific expertise. The crews are British. The command systems are British. The final decision rests solely with the Prime Minister.
此外，英国的弹头是利用英国的科学专业知识在国内设计和制造的。艇员是英国人。指挥系统是英国的。最后的决定完全取决于首相。
此外，英国的弹头是利用英国的科学专业知识在国内设计和制造的。艇员是英国人。指挥系统是英国的。最后的决定完全取决于首相。
That doesn’t mean the UK is immune to strategic risk. Yes, dependence on the US for support over decades raises questions about resilience and future autonomy. And yes, the political reliability of any ally—including under a potentially transactional US administration—is a valid topic for debate.
这并不意味着英国不受战略风险的影响。是的，几十年来对美国支持的依赖，引发了有关恢复力和未来自主权的问题。是的，任何盟友的政治可靠性——包括潜在的交易型美国政府——都是一个合理的辩论话题。
这并不意味着英国不受战略风险的影响。是的，几十年来对美国支持的依赖，引发了有关恢复力和未来自主权的问题。是的，任何盟友的政治可靠性——包括潜在的交易型美国政府——都是一个合理的辩论话题。
But those discussions should be rooted in accurate facts. Suggesting, or even implying, that the US has the power to unilaterally disable the UK deterrent is not only wrong—it’s misleading.
但这些讨论应该基于准确的事实。暗示，甚至提议美国有能力单方面破坏英国的威慑力量不仅是错误的，而且是在误导。
但这些讨论应该基于准确的事实。暗示，甚至提议美国有能力单方面破坏英国的威慑力量不仅是错误的，而且是在误导。
If the intent of the article was to challenge the cost, logic, or morality of nuclear weapons, that is a legitimate position. But even in that debate, clarity matters. The UK chose to build a deterrent that is technically supported by allies but controlled only by its own government. Trident is not on loan; it is sovereign.
如果这篇文章的意图是挑战核武器的成本、逻辑或道德，那是一个合法的立场。但即使在这场辩论中，清晰也很重要。英国选择建立一种技术上得到盟友支持、但仅由本国政府控制的威慑力量。三叉戟不是租借的；它是完全独立的。
如果这篇文章的意图是挑战核武器的成本、逻辑或道德，那是一个合法的立场。但即使在这场辩论中，清晰也很重要。英国选择建立一种技术上得到盟友支持、但仅由本国政府控制的威慑力量。三叉戟不是租借的；它是完全独立的。
So no, the US cannot “switch off” the UK’s nuclear submarines. And we should be wary of any narrative that suggests otherwise—especially when public understanding of nuclear policy depends so heavily on how we frx it.
所以，不，美国无法“关闭”英国的核潜艇。我们应该警惕任何暗示相反观点的叙述——尤其是当公众对核政策的理解在很大程度上取决于我们如何构建它的时候。
所以，不，美国无法“关闭”英国的核潜艇。我们应该警惕任何暗示相反观点的叙述——尤其是当公众对核政策的理解在很大程度上取决于我们如何构建它的时候。
But as provocative as the claim sounds, it doesn’t reflect the operational reality of the UK’s nuclear posture. The UK’s deterrent remains under sovereign control—technologically supported by allies, yes, but not subject to foreign veto.
尽管这一说法听起来具有挑衅性，但它并没有反映出英国核态势的实际情况。英国的核威慑仍处于主权控制之下——在技术上得到盟友的支持，没错，但不受外国否决权的约束。
尽管这一说法听起来具有挑衅性，但它并没有反映出英国核态势的实际情况。英国的核威慑仍处于主权控制之下——在技术上得到盟友的支持，没错，但不受外国否决权的约束。
So when people ask whether Britain could fire its missiles without American permission, the answer is simple: yes, it can. And that’s the whole point.
因此，当人们问英国是否可以在没有美国许可的情况下发射导弹时，答案很简单：是的，可以。这就是重点所在。
因此，当人们问英国是否可以在没有美国许可的情况下发射导弹时，答案很简单：是的，可以。这就是重点所在。
评论翻译
Chemistry-Deep
The minute the US "switches something off", be that F-35s or missiles, their entire defense industry is done. No-one would trust them with weapons purchases for the next 50-100 years. No amount of fantasy territorial gains would offset that.
一旦美国“关闭某些东西”，无论是F-35还是导弹，他们的整个国防工业就完了。那么在接下来的50-100年里，没有人会信任他们和武器。再多幻想中的领土扩张也无法抵消这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The minute the US "switches something off", be that F-35s or missiles, their entire defense industry is done. No-one would trust them with weapons purchases for the next 50-100 years. No amount of fantasy territorial gains would offset that.
一旦美国“关闭某些东西”，无论是F-35还是导弹，他们的整个国防工业就完了。那么在接下来的50-100年里，没有人会信任他们和武器。再多幻想中的领土扩张也无法抵消这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
peakedtooearly
Their weapons industry is already mortally wounded. I can't see many European or even Asian nations considering strategic reliance on US defence manufacturers.
Way too risky. What happens if Vance succeeds Trump? He (Vance) doesn't have a fetish for the Royal Family so might decide to cut the UK off entirely.
In the longer term Trump has done us a favour. Now Europe can build a stronger defence industry and a stronger defence capability which will lead to greater sovereignty and some economic benefits.
他们的武器工业已经受到了致命的打击。我看不出很多欧洲甚至亚洲国家会考虑对美国国防制造商的战略依赖。
太冒险了。如果万斯接替特朗普会发生什么？他（万斯）对王室没有恋物癖，所以可能会决定完全与英国断绝关系。
从长期来看，特朗普帮了我们一个忙（提前预警了）。现在欧洲可以建立一个更强大的国防工业和更强大的防御能力，这将带来更大的主权和一些经济利益。
Their weapons industry is already mortally wounded. I can't see many European or even Asian nations considering strategic reliance on US defence manufacturers.
Way too risky. What happens if Vance succeeds Trump? He (Vance) doesn't have a fetish for the Royal Family so might decide to cut the UK off entirely.
In the longer term Trump has done us a favour. Now Europe can build a stronger defence industry and a stronger defence capability which will lead to greater sovereignty and some economic benefits.
他们的武器工业已经受到了致命的打击。我看不出很多欧洲甚至亚洲国家会考虑对美国国防制造商的战略依赖。
太冒险了。如果万斯接替特朗普会发生什么？他（万斯）对王室没有恋物癖，所以可能会决定完全与英国断绝关系。
从长期来看，特朗普帮了我们一个忙（提前预警了）。现在欧洲可以建立一个更强大的国防工业和更强大的防御能力，这将带来更大的主权和一些经济利益。
LogicalBoot6352
I wouldn't be so sure of the longer term benefits. The way you are talking is blxered and makes the same mistake that we made with the US...assuming that our friends will always be our friends. Just remember why Europe has limited defence capability.
But, we still have to improve European defence capability, so all it's really done is put us on a timeline that has a greater chance of a European war in the future.
我不太确定长期的好处。你说话的方式是狭隘的，犯了我们对美国犯的同样的错误——假设我们的朋友永远是我们的朋友。记住为什么欧洲的防御能力有限。
但是，我们仍然需要提高欧洲的防御能力，所以它所做的只是把我们放在一个未来欧洲战争可能性更大的时间表上。
I wouldn't be so sure of the longer term benefits. The way you are talking is blxered and makes the same mistake that we made with the US...assuming that our friends will always be our friends. Just remember why Europe has limited defence capability.
But, we still have to improve European defence capability, so all it's really done is put us on a timeline that has a greater chance of a European war in the future.
我不太确定长期的好处。你说话的方式是狭隘的，犯了我们对美国犯的同样的错误——假设我们的朋友永远是我们的朋友。记住为什么欧洲的防御能力有限。
但是，我们仍然需要提高欧洲的防御能力，所以它所做的只是把我们放在一个未来欧洲战争可能性更大的时间表上。
Astriania
Assuming western Europe will always be our friends is more reasonable than assuming the US will be. We have shared geographic interests and a long cultural connection.
Even WW1 and 2 weren't really them falling out with us, they were continental nations falling out with each other and creating two sides that we had to take one of. It's unlikely that the lessons that led to the EU will be forgotten so completely that you'll see Germany and France fighting each other again in the next 100 years.
假设西欧将永远是我们的朋友，比假设美国将永远是我们的朋友更合理。因为我们有着共同的地理利益和悠久的文化渊源。
即使是一战和二战也不是他们和我们闹翻，他们是大陆国家互相闹翻，形成了我们必须站在一边的两方。导致欧盟形成的教训不太可能被完全遗忘，以至于你会看到德国和法国在未来100年内再次相互争斗。
Assuming western Europe will always be our friends is more reasonable than assuming the US will be. We have shared geographic interests and a long cultural connection.
Even WW1 and 2 weren't really them falling out with us, they were continental nations falling out with each other and creating two sides that we had to take one of. It's unlikely that the lessons that led to the EU will be forgotten so completely that you'll see Germany and France fighting each other again in the next 100 years.
假设西欧将永远是我们的朋友，比假设美国将永远是我们的朋友更合理。因为我们有着共同的地理利益和悠久的文化渊源。
即使是一战和二战也不是他们和我们闹翻，他们是大陆国家互相闹翻，形成了我们必须站在一边的两方。导致欧盟形成的教训不太可能被完全遗忘，以至于你会看到德国和法国在未来100年内再次相互争斗。
BuxtonB
We have shared geographic interests and a long cultural connection.
Now transpose what you've said and apply it to the US and Canada.
“因为我们有着共同的地理利益和悠久的文化渊源”
现在把你所说的套到美国和加拿大身上。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
We have shared geographic interests and a long cultural connection.
Now transpose what you've said and apply it to the US and Canada.
“因为我们有着共同的地理利益和悠久的文化渊源”
现在把你所说的套到美国和加拿大身上。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
HawkinsT
The UK defence industry regularly partners with US companies. With France pushing for made in EU only options for the EU (i.e. France), I wouldn't be so sure about this being good for the UK in the long run.
英国国防工业经常与美国公司合作。随着法国推动欧盟（即法国）只能选择欧盟制造，我不太确定这对英国长期有利。
The UK defence industry regularly partners with US companies. With France pushing for made in EU only options for the EU (i.e. France), I wouldn't be so sure about this being good for the UK in the long run.
英国国防工业经常与美国公司合作。随着法国推动欧盟（即法国）只能选择欧盟制造，我不太确定这对英国长期有利。
grumpsaboy
The problem much of Europe has with US equipment is they made non critical parts the US can easily do themselves if both sides block spare parts from each other.
The UK however tends to make critical parts like ejector seats for US navy aircraft or electric warfare suites which gives us far more leverage as the US can't easily just design a seat or code a new program as it takes almost as long as the fighter to design.
许多欧洲国家对美国装备的问题是，如果双方互相封锁备件，由它们制造的非关键部件美国可以很容易地自己制造。
然而，英国倾向于为美国海军飞机制造弹射座椅或电子战套件等关键部件，这给了我们更多的杠杆作用，因为美国无法轻易地设计一个座位或编写一个新程序，因为它几乎需要和战斗机一样长的时间来设计。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The problem much of Europe has with US equipment is they made non critical parts the US can easily do themselves if both sides block spare parts from each other.
The UK however tends to make critical parts like ejector seats for US navy aircraft or electric warfare suites which gives us far more leverage as the US can't easily just design a seat or code a new program as it takes almost as long as the fighter to design.
许多欧洲国家对美国装备的问题是，如果双方互相封锁备件，由它们制造的非关键部件美国可以很容易地自己制造。
然而，英国倾向于为美国海军飞机制造弹射座椅或电子战套件等关键部件，这给了我们更多的杠杆作用，因为美国无法轻易地设计一个座位或编写一个新程序，因为它几乎需要和战斗机一样长的时间来设计。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
honkymotherfucker1
The problem is that in a future war with Russia (which isn’t an impossibility and all EU countries are factoring) it’s not clear what side the US will be on. At that point the economic factors won’t matter.
问题是，在未来与俄罗斯的战争中（这不是不可能的，并且所有欧盟国家都在考虑），美国将站在哪一边还不清楚。到那时，经济因素就不重要了。
The problem is that in a future war with Russia (which isn’t an impossibility and all EU countries are factoring) it’s not clear what side the US will be on. At that point the economic factors won’t matter.
问题是，在未来与俄罗斯的战争中（这不是不可能的，并且所有欧盟国家都在考虑），美国将站在哪一边还不清楚。到那时，经济因素就不重要了。
real_Mini_geek
They will try to stay neutral, then just as whatever side is about to loose they will step in to save them.. so Russia
Just the same as they did last time
他们会试图保持中立，然后当哪一方要打输时，他们就会介入拯救他们……所以俄罗斯
就和他们上次一样
They will try to stay neutral, then just as whatever side is about to loose they will step in to save them.. so Russia
Just the same as they did last time
他们会试图保持中立，然后当哪一方要打输时，他们就会介入拯救他们……所以俄罗斯
就和他们上次一样
ipub
I think that journey has already started and it won't end with defence. Why buy American if you have other options. Why use the dollar if the dollar has become unreliable etc. I think once it gets to banking systems, things will get spicy. America is rejecting globalism with its actions.
我认为这段旅程已经开始了，它不会停在国防领域。如果你有其他选择，为什么要买美国货呢？如果美元变得不可靠了，为什么还要用美元呢？我认为一旦波及到银行系统，事情就会变得棘手起来。美国正在用自己的行动抵制全球主义。
I think that journey has already started and it won't end with defence. Why buy American if you have other options. Why use the dollar if the dollar has become unreliable etc. I think once it gets to banking systems, things will get spicy. America is rejecting globalism with its actions.
我认为这段旅程已经开始了，它不会停在国防领域。如果你有其他选择，为什么要买美国货呢？如果美元变得不可靠了，为什么还要用美元呢？我认为一旦波及到银行系统，事情就会变得棘手起来。美国正在用自己的行动抵制全球主义。
Ochib
The US can’t switch off the weapons that they have sold the UK, but they can slow down the supply chain.
That dongle that needs to be replaced every 100 hours, sorry you can’t have one for a few months. This will could ground the jets
美国无法关闭他们卖给英国的武器，但他们可以放慢供应链。
那个每100小时就要更换一次的加密狗，很抱歉你几个月都买不到了。这将导致飞机停飞
The US can’t switch off the weapons that they have sold the UK, but they can slow down the supply chain.
That dongle that needs to be replaced every 100 hours, sorry you can’t have one for a few months. This will could ground the jets
美国无法关闭他们卖给英国的武器，但他们可以放慢供应链。
那个每100小时就要更换一次的加密狗，很抱歉你几个月都买不到了。这将导致飞机停飞
Carnal_Adventurer
America wants to control everything. Same reason they tried restrict who had nukes by reneging on the agreement to share the details of the Manhattan project despite other countries contributing extensively to it. Or stealing the gold reserves of several countries when they were sent there for safekeeping during the war.
The US likely has a kill switch for all their high end weaponry that they sell. That's why the French don't trust them.
美国想控制一切。同样的原因，他们试图通过违背分享曼哈顿项目细节的协议来限制谁拥有核武器，尽管其他国家为该项目做出了大量贡献。或者在战争期间偷走几个国家的黄金储备，当这些储备被送到那里保管时。
美国可能对他们出售的所有高端武器都留有一个致命开关。所以法国人不信任他们。
America wants to control everything. Same reason they tried restrict who had nukes by reneging on the agreement to share the details of the Manhattan project despite other countries contributing extensively to it. Or stealing the gold reserves of several countries when they were sent there for safekeeping during the war.
The US likely has a kill switch for all their high end weaponry that they sell. That's why the French don't trust them.
美国想控制一切。同样的原因，他们试图通过违背分享曼哈顿项目细节的协议来限制谁拥有核武器，尽管其他国家为该项目做出了大量贡献。或者在战争期间偷走几个国家的黄金储备，当这些储备被送到那里保管时。
美国可能对他们出售的所有高端武器都留有一个致命开关。所以法国人不信任他们。
tehackerknownas4chan
The US likely has a kill switch for all their high end weaponry that they sell
I'd say the opposite, I don't think its likely they would have anything like that unless they're incredibly stupid. A remote kill switch could be exploited by enemies, and not only that if one was found or used their entire military export industry would collapse immediately.
“美国可能对他们出售的所有高端武器都留有一个致命开关”
我想说的正好相反，我不认为他们会有这样的东西，除非他们非常愚蠢。一个远程杀伤开关可以被敌人利用，不仅如此，如果有一个被发现或使用了，他们的整个军事出口工业将立即崩溃。
The US likely has a kill switch for all their high end weaponry that they sell
I'd say the opposite, I don't think its likely they would have anything like that unless they're incredibly stupid. A remote kill switch could be exploited by enemies, and not only that if one was found or used their entire military export industry would collapse immediately.
“美国可能对他们出售的所有高端武器都留有一个致命开关”
我想说的正好相反，我不认为他们会有这样的东西，除非他们非常愚蠢。一个远程杀伤开关可以被敌人利用，不仅如此，如果有一个被发现或使用了，他们的整个军事出口工业将立即崩溃。
Carnal_Adventurer
The F35s we bought from them need to contact the hub in the US every month. We haven't been told what will happen if they don't, or if anything has gone wrong in the last with upxes. But it's a serious issue if America decides not to release further upxes.
我们从他们那里买的F-35需要每个月联系美国的中心。我们还没有被告知如果他们不这样做会发生什么，或者在最后的更新中是不是出现了什么问题。但如果美国决定不发布进一步的更新，这将是一个严重的问题。
The F35s we bought from them need to contact the hub in the US every month. We haven't been told what will happen if they don't, or if anything has gone wrong in the last with upxes. But it's a serious issue if America decides not to release further upxes.
我们从他们那里买的F-35需要每个月联系美国的中心。我们还没有被告知如果他们不这样做会发生什么，或者在最后的更新中是不是出现了什么问题。但如果美国决定不发布进一步的更新，这将是一个严重的问题。
FearlessPressure3
As I understand it, it’s not so much the worry of the US switching things off as it is withholding software upxes or intelligence that allows them to work to their full capacity. They’ve already shown they’re willing to do that to Ukraine. I don’t really know why anyone expects they wouldn’t be willing to do it to other former allies too.
据我所知，与其说是担心美国关闭这些设备，不如说是担心美国不更新软件或不提供情报，以使它们无法充分发挥作用。他们已经表明他们愿意对乌克兰这样做。我真的不知道为什么有人认为他们不愿意对其他前盟友做同样的事情。
As I understand it, it’s not so much the worry of the US switching things off as it is withholding software upxes or intelligence that allows them to work to their full capacity. They’ve already shown they’re willing to do that to Ukraine. I don’t really know why anyone expects they wouldn’t be willing to do it to other former allies too.
据我所知，与其说是担心美国关闭这些设备，不如说是担心美国不更新软件或不提供情报，以使它们无法充分发挥作用。他们已经表明他们愿意对乌克兰这样做。我真的不知道为什么有人认为他们不愿意对其他前盟友做同样的事情。
greenpowerman99
Why would you want to spend billions on weapons from an unreliable source when you can make them yourself and spend the money in your own country instead? European weapons systems are every bit as advanced as US systems. So good that the US buys components of their most advanced weapons systems from Europe already…
当你可以自己制造武器并把钱花在自己的国家时，你为什么要花数十亿美元从一个不可靠的来源购买武器呢？欧洲的武器系统和美国的一样先进。美国已经从欧洲购买了他们最先进的武器系统的部件真是太好了……
Why would you want to spend billions on weapons from an unreliable source when you can make them yourself and spend the money in your own country instead? European weapons systems are every bit as advanced as US systems. So good that the US buys components of their most advanced weapons systems from Europe already…
当你可以自己制造武器并把钱花在自己的国家时，你为什么要花数十亿美元从一个不可靠的来源购买武器呢？欧洲的武器系统和美国的一样先进。美国已经从欧洲购买了他们最先进的武器系统的部件真是太好了……
Frosty_Customer_9243
Maybe they can’t switch it off, but stop supporting it and see how quickly you have a paperweight instead of a nuclear deterrent.
也许他们不能把它关掉，但停止支持它，然后看看多快你手上的玩意就会变成一块镇纸而不是核威慑。
Maybe they can’t switch it off, but stop supporting it and see how quickly you have a paperweight instead of a nuclear deterrent.
也许他们不能把它关掉，但停止支持它，然后看看多快你手上的玩意就会变成一块镇纸而不是核威慑。
tree_boom
It'll never get to that point. The last missiles to go unserviceable would last a decade, plenty of time to spin up our own maintenance routine
事情永远不会到达那个点。最后一枚无法使用的导弹将持续10年，因此有足够的时间来启动我们自己的维护程序
It'll never get to that point. The last missiles to go unserviceable would last a decade, plenty of time to spin up our own maintenance routine
事情永远不会到达那个点。最后一枚无法使用的导弹将持续10年，因此有足够的时间来启动我们自己的维护程序
libtin
The missiles only got to America once every ten years.
We’ve had them for nearly 30 and have done multiple routine maintenance on them; it wouldn’t be hard to reverse engineer, relatively speaking
这些导弹每十年才送到美国一次。
我们使用了近30年，对它们进行了多次例行维护；相对而言，逆向工程并不难
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The missiles only got to America once every ten years.
We’ve had them for nearly 30 and have done multiple routine maintenance on them; it wouldn’t be hard to reverse engineer, relatively speaking
这些导弹每十年才送到美国一次。
我们使用了近30年，对它们进行了多次例行维护；相对而言，逆向工程并不难
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Frosty_Customer_9243
I hope you are right and that the reverse engineering is being done as we speak.
我希望你是对的，相关逆向工程在我们说话的时候正在进行。
I hope you are right and that the reverse engineering is being done as we speak.
我希望你是对的，相关逆向工程在我们说话的时候正在进行。
libtin
We helped create trident; it’s a joint Anglo-American project
我们帮助制造了三叉戟；这是一个英美联合项目
We helped create trident; it’s a joint Anglo-American project
我们帮助制造了三叉戟；这是一个英美联合项目
Frosty_Customer_9243
Doesn’t that mean the UK owns and manufactures the warheads and the USA owns and manufactures the rocket delivery vehicle? Rockets are leased by the UK from the USA.
这是不是意味着英国拥有并制造弹头，而美国拥有并制造导弹运载工具？导弹是英国从美国租借的。
Doesn’t that mean the UK owns and manufactures the warheads and the USA owns and manufactures the rocket delivery vehicle? Rockets are leased by the UK from the USA.
这是不是意味着英国拥有并制造弹头，而美国拥有并制造导弹运载工具？导弹是英国从美国租借的。
EdmundTheInsulter
I'm not sure if we can fully long-term maintain them.
我不确定我们能否长期维持它们。
I'm not sure if we can fully long-term maintain them.
我不确定我们能否长期维持它们。
145inC
Trump may be spiteful and a bit dense, but he's never going to allow the UK to fire a nuke, no president would.
Those weapons will be seen by the US as part of their insurance policy, not the UKs.
They're the UKs in name only.
特朗普可能是恶意的，有点笨，但他永远不会允许英国发射核武器，没有总统会这样做。
因为这些武器将被美国视为其保险政策的一部分，而不是英国的。
它们只是在名义上属于英国。
Trump may be spiteful and a bit dense, but he's never going to allow the UK to fire a nuke, no president would.
Those weapons will be seen by the US as part of their insurance policy, not the UKs.
They're the UKs in name only.
特朗普可能是恶意的，有点笨，但他永远不会允许英国发射核武器，没有总统会这样做。
因为这些武器将被美国视为其保险政策的一部分，而不是英国的。
它们只是在名义上属于英国。
No-Milk-874
Sure, but the warhead is pretty useless without a serviceable delivery vehicle, i.e., the US owned Tridents.
美国人当然关不掉，但如果没有可用的运载工具——比如美国拥有的三叉戟导弹，弹头就毫无用处。
Sure, but the warhead is pretty useless without a serviceable delivery vehicle, i.e., the US owned Tridents.
美国人当然关不掉，但如果没有可用的运载工具——比如美国拥有的三叉戟导弹，弹头就毫无用处。
Specialist-Driver550
We don’t know whether the US government can prevent the UK government from firing a nuclear missile, because the UK government would never admit to it, and probably wouldn’t even know themselves. Its naive to treat the official statement as if it means anything, because that’s what they’d say anyway.
我们不知道美国政府是否能阻止英国政府发射核导弹，因为英国政府永远不会承认这一点，可能连他们自己都不知道。把官方声明当成什么有意义的东西很天真，因为他们不管怎样都会这么说。
We don’t know whether the US government can prevent the UK government from firing a nuclear missile, because the UK government would never admit to it, and probably wouldn’t even know themselves. Its naive to treat the official statement as if it means anything, because that’s what they’d say anyway.
我们不知道美国政府是否能阻止英国政府发射核导弹，因为英国政府永远不会承认这一点，可能连他们自己都不知道。把官方声明当成什么有意义的东西很天真，因为他们不管怎样都会这么说。
很赞 5
收藏