扎克·波兰斯基说，英国“必须准备把美国军队赶出这个国家”
正文翻译
UK 'must prepare to kick US troops out of country', Zack Polanski says
扎克·波兰斯基说，英国“必须准备把美国军队赶出这个国家”
(Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK would not respond to US tariffs by entering a trade war.)
（英国首相斯塔默表示，英国不会以贸易战来回应美国的关税。）
新闻：
THE UK Government must “urgently” make a plan on how to remove US military bases from British soil in the wake of Donald Trump’s threats over Greenland, Zack Polanski has said.
扎克·波兰斯基表示，在唐纳德·特朗普对格陵兰岛的威胁之后，英国政府必须“紧急”制定一个如何从英国领土上撤出美国军事基地的计划。
The leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Polanski also called for the UK Government to scrap a £240 million deal with US firm Palantir and cut its reliance on nuclear weapons amid a wider review of defence strategy.
作为英格兰和威尔士绿党的领袖，波兰斯基还呼吁英国政府放弃与美国帕兰提尔公司2.4亿英镑的交易，并在更广泛的国防战略审查中减少对核武器的依赖。
The intervention, in an article for The New Statesman , comes as European leaders are grappling with how to respond to Trump’s threats to hit his own allies with tariffs if he is not allowed to buy Greenland.
在《新政治家》的一篇文章中，欧洲领导人正在努力应对特朗普的威胁——如果不允许他购买格陵兰岛，他将用关税打击自己的盟友。
The US president said he would charge the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland a 10% tariff “on any and all goods” sent to the US from February 1, increasing to 25% from June 1, until a deal is reached over Greenland.
美国总统表示，从2月1日起，他将对英国、丹麦、挪威、瑞典、法国、德国、荷兰和芬兰对运往美国的“任何和所有商品”征收10%的关税，从6月1日起增加到25%，直到就格陵兰岛达成协议。
Trump has also not ruled out military action to achieve his aim of taking the territory, which is a semi-autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed on Monday that Trump was not being genuine about the prospect of using military force to annex the island, and signalled Britain would not engage in a trade war over the dispute.
特朗普也不排除采取军事行动来实现他占领该领土（丹麦王国的半自治部分）的目标。英国首相斯塔默周一声称，特朗普对使用武力吞并该岛的前景并不真诚，并表示英国不会因这一争端而卷入贸易战。
Polanski said the UK Government needed to review its security strategy, writing: “Suddenly, the idea that we might need to rethink our security structures doesn’t seem so naïve, while people like Nigel Farage who’ve spent years cosying up to Trump clearly aren’t the ones we should be listening to at this moment.”
波兰斯基表示，英国政府需要重新审视其安全战略，他写道：“突然之间，我们可能需要重新考虑我们的安全结构的想法似乎不那么天真了，而像奈杰尔·法拉奇这样多年来一直在讨好特朗普的人显然不是我们现在应该倾听的人。”
He went on: “When Trump says ‘one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland’, we should sit up and listen.
他接着说：“当特朗普说‘不管怎样，我们都会得到格陵兰岛’时，我们应当警觉。
“It’s now terrifyingly clear that betting our entire national security on being America’s poodle will simply not be a tenable situation for much longer. So the question is, what do we do about it?”
“现在非常清楚的是，把我们的整个国家安全押在成为美国的贵宾狗上是无法长久的。所以问题是，我们该怎么做？”
Polanski laid out four key areas:
波兰斯基提出了四个关键方面：
First, he called for the UK to “disentangle our security apparatus from the USA so that we are genuinely independent”. He said this should include a plan to remove US bases from UK soil, and cancelling the £240m deal with Palatir.
首先，他呼吁英国“将我们的安全机构与美国分开，这样我们才能真正独立”。他表示，这应该包括从英国领土上撤走美国基地的计划，以及取消与帕兰提尔公司的2.4亿英镑交易。
Second, he called for the UK Trident nuclear weapons system, which “relies on the USA”, to be ditched “fast”.
第二，他呼吁英国“迅速”抛弃“依赖美国”的三叉戟核武器系统。
Third, he called for a “genuine security review that takes into account the serious threats facing the UK today”. Polanski said this includes analysis of the impact of the climate crisis as “military figures are warning that the threats posed by the climate crisis dwarf the threat from other states”.
第三，他呼吁进行“真正的安全审查，考虑到英国目前面临的严重威胁”。波兰斯基说，这包括对气候危机影响的分析，因为“军方人士警告说，气候危机构成的威胁使来自其他国家的威胁相形见绌”。
Fourth, the UK should strengthen relations with European allies and the Global South in order to “reduce our dependence on the US”.
第四，英国应加强与欧洲盟友和全球南方国家的关系，以“减少对美国的依赖”。
He finished: “The first duty of a government is to keep its people safe. And in today’s unpredictable world, that won’t be achieved by clinging to outdated ideas about security, or cowering at Trump’s feet in the hopes that he will protect us.
他最后说：“政府的首要职责是保障人民的安全。在当今这个不可预测的世界里，坚持过时的安全观念，或者畏缩在特朗普的脚下，希望他能保护我们，是无法实现这一目标的。
“Instead it means getting real about the threats facing us, from Putin’s imperial ambitions and Trump’s insatiable demands to cyber-warfare and climate breakdown.
“相反，这意味着我们要正视我们面临的威胁，从普京的帝国野心和特朗普的贪得无厌的要求，到网络战和气候崩溃。
“For too long British leaders have had their heads in the sand. It’s time to wake up.”
“长期以来，英国领导人一直把头埋在沙子里。该醒醒了。”
It comes after Scottish Green co-leader Gillian Mackay called on First Minister John Swinney to ban US military planes from using Scottish airbases.
此前，苏格兰绿党联合领袖吉莉安·麦凯呼吁首席大臣约翰·斯温尼禁止美国军用飞机使用苏格兰空军基地。
At First Minister’s Questions last week, Mackay said Scotland “must stand up to Trump and his contempt for international law, and reassure the people of Greenland that we will not be complicit in any part of an attempted annexation”.
在上周的首席大臣提问会上，麦凯表示，苏格兰“必须对抗特朗普和他对国际法的蔑视，并向格陵兰人民保证，我们不会参与任何企图吞并的行为”。
Swinney responded: “I want to make it clear that I believe it is important that all of that infrastructure, if it were ever to be used, can only be used consistent with the international rules based system for the arrangements between countries, and I will ensure that is the case.”
斯温尼回答说：“我想明确表示，我认为重要的是，所有这些基础设施，如果要使用，只能符合基于国际规则的国家间安排体系，我将确保这一点。”
扎克·波兰斯基说，英国“必须准备把美国军队赶出这个国家”
(Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK would not respond to US tariffs by entering a trade war.)
（英国首相斯塔默表示，英国不会以贸易战来回应美国的关税。）
新闻：
THE UK Government must “urgently” make a plan on how to remove US military bases from British soil in the wake of Donald Trump’s threats over Greenland, Zack Polanski has said.
扎克·波兰斯基表示，在唐纳德·特朗普对格陵兰岛的威胁之后，英国政府必须“紧急”制定一个如何从英国领土上撤出美国军事基地的计划。
The leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Polanski also called for the UK Government to scrap a £240 million deal with US firm Palantir and cut its reliance on nuclear weapons amid a wider review of defence strategy.
作为英格兰和威尔士绿党的领袖，波兰斯基还呼吁英国政府放弃与美国帕兰提尔公司2.4亿英镑的交易，并在更广泛的国防战略审查中减少对核武器的依赖。
The intervention, in an article for The New Statesman , comes as European leaders are grappling with how to respond to Trump’s threats to hit his own allies with tariffs if he is not allowed to buy Greenland.
在《新政治家》的一篇文章中，欧洲领导人正在努力应对特朗普的威胁——如果不允许他购买格陵兰岛，他将用关税打击自己的盟友。
The US president said he would charge the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland a 10% tariff “on any and all goods” sent to the US from February 1, increasing to 25% from June 1, until a deal is reached over Greenland.
美国总统表示，从2月1日起，他将对英国、丹麦、挪威、瑞典、法国、德国、荷兰和芬兰对运往美国的“任何和所有商品”征收10%的关税，从6月1日起增加到25%，直到就格陵兰岛达成协议。
Trump has also not ruled out military action to achieve his aim of taking the territory, which is a semi-autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed on Monday that Trump was not being genuine about the prospect of using military force to annex the island, and signalled Britain would not engage in a trade war over the dispute.
特朗普也不排除采取军事行动来实现他占领该领土（丹麦王国的半自治部分）的目标。英国首相斯塔默周一声称，特朗普对使用武力吞并该岛的前景并不真诚，并表示英国不会因这一争端而卷入贸易战。
Polanski said the UK Government needed to review its security strategy, writing: “Suddenly, the idea that we might need to rethink our security structures doesn’t seem so naïve, while people like Nigel Farage who’ve spent years cosying up to Trump clearly aren’t the ones we should be listening to at this moment.”
波兰斯基表示，英国政府需要重新审视其安全战略，他写道：“突然之间，我们可能需要重新考虑我们的安全结构的想法似乎不那么天真了，而像奈杰尔·法拉奇这样多年来一直在讨好特朗普的人显然不是我们现在应该倾听的人。”
He went on: “When Trump says ‘one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland’, we should sit up and listen.
他接着说：“当特朗普说‘不管怎样，我们都会得到格陵兰岛’时，我们应当警觉。
“It’s now terrifyingly clear that betting our entire national security on being America’s poodle will simply not be a tenable situation for much longer. So the question is, what do we do about it?”
“现在非常清楚的是，把我们的整个国家安全押在成为美国的贵宾狗上是无法长久的。所以问题是，我们该怎么做？”
Polanski laid out four key areas:
波兰斯基提出了四个关键方面：
First, he called for the UK to “disentangle our security apparatus from the USA so that we are genuinely independent”. He said this should include a plan to remove US bases from UK soil, and cancelling the £240m deal with Palatir.
首先，他呼吁英国“将我们的安全机构与美国分开，这样我们才能真正独立”。他表示，这应该包括从英国领土上撤走美国基地的计划，以及取消与帕兰提尔公司的2.4亿英镑交易。
Second, he called for the UK Trident nuclear weapons system, which “relies on the USA”, to be ditched “fast”.
第二，他呼吁英国“迅速”抛弃“依赖美国”的三叉戟核武器系统。
Third, he called for a “genuine security review that takes into account the serious threats facing the UK today”. Polanski said this includes analysis of the impact of the climate crisis as “military figures are warning that the threats posed by the climate crisis dwarf the threat from other states”.
第三，他呼吁进行“真正的安全审查，考虑到英国目前面临的严重威胁”。波兰斯基说，这包括对气候危机影响的分析，因为“军方人士警告说，气候危机构成的威胁使来自其他国家的威胁相形见绌”。
Fourth, the UK should strengthen relations with European allies and the Global South in order to “reduce our dependence on the US”.
第四，英国应加强与欧洲盟友和全球南方国家的关系，以“减少对美国的依赖”。
He finished: “The first duty of a government is to keep its people safe. And in today’s unpredictable world, that won’t be achieved by clinging to outdated ideas about security, or cowering at Trump’s feet in the hopes that he will protect us.
他最后说：“政府的首要职责是保障人民的安全。在当今这个不可预测的世界里，坚持过时的安全观念，或者畏缩在特朗普的脚下，希望他能保护我们，是无法实现这一目标的。
“Instead it means getting real about the threats facing us, from Putin’s imperial ambitions and Trump’s insatiable demands to cyber-warfare and climate breakdown.
“相反，这意味着我们要正视我们面临的威胁，从普京的帝国野心和特朗普的贪得无厌的要求，到网络战和气候崩溃。
“For too long British leaders have had their heads in the sand. It’s time to wake up.”
“长期以来，英国领导人一直把头埋在沙子里。该醒醒了。”
It comes after Scottish Green co-leader Gillian Mackay called on First Minister John Swinney to ban US military planes from using Scottish airbases.
此前，苏格兰绿党联合领袖吉莉安·麦凯呼吁首席大臣约翰·斯温尼禁止美国军用飞机使用苏格兰空军基地。
At First Minister’s Questions last week, Mackay said Scotland “must stand up to Trump and his contempt for international law, and reassure the people of Greenland that we will not be complicit in any part of an attempted annexation”.
在上周的首席大臣提问会上，麦凯表示，苏格兰“必须对抗特朗普和他对国际法的蔑视，并向格陵兰人民保证，我们不会参与任何企图吞并的行为”。
Swinney responded: “I want to make it clear that I believe it is important that all of that infrastructure, if it were ever to be used, can only be used consistent with the international rules based system for the arrangements between countries, and I will ensure that is the case.”
斯温尼回答说：“我想明确表示，我认为重要的是，所有这些基础设施，如果要使用，只能符合基于国际规则的国家间安排体系，我将确保这一点。”
评论翻译
Jamie54Scotland
For the UK to prepare properly for that they must invest significantly in the military. How much funding would Zack Polanski give the military?
英国要做好充分准备，就必须大力投资军事。扎克·波兰斯基会给军方多少资金？
JaMs_buzz
Polanski wants to try to setup a European alternative to NATO, and to gradually ween ourselves off of US dependence.
波兰斯基想尝试建立一个欧洲的替代版北约，并逐渐使我们摆脱对美国的依赖。
Corvid187
The policy is fine enough if you ignore the fact that Europe has routinely failed to align enough to develop such an organisation. The difficult question is how much funding is that policy going to have?
Even in a joint European frxwork, you're still going to have to replace the range of capabilities that Europe as a whole currently relies on the US for, and that is going to cost some amount more than we currently spend on our armed forces. Polanski has been very reluctant to discuss how much of an increase he is willing to provide to cover those gaps.
如果忽略欧洲长期以来未能达成足够一致以建立这样一个组织这一事实，那么这项政策还算不错。但难题在于，这项政策将获得多少资金？
即便是在欧洲的联合框架内，你仍需弥补欧洲整体目前在某些方面依赖美国所提供的能力的缺失，而这将比我们目前在军队方面的开支多出一些数额。波兰斯基一直不愿讨论他愿意为此提供多少额外资金来填补这些缺口。
James20k
The policy is fine enough if you ignore the fact that Europe has routinely failed to align enough to develop such an organisation. The difficult question is how much funding is that policy going to have?
There's no other organisation large enough to make it work. There's simply nobody else to turn to. Its either attempt to get the EU to form a cohesive fighting force, or go it alone. Its a crap state of affairs, but its the best place to make an effort
The EU is the only major reliable partner that the UK has of a similar size to the US. Where else can we go, is there another policy here which is even remotely feasible?
“如果忽略欧洲长期以来未能达成足够一致以建立这样一个组织这一事实，那么这项政策还算不错。但难题在于，这项政策将获得多少资金？”
没有其他组织规模大到足以使其运作起来。根本没有其他可以求助的对象。要么试图让欧盟组建一支团结的战斗力量，要么就独自行动。这种状况很糟糕，但这也是我们努力的最佳时机。
欧盟是英国唯一一个与美国规模相当且可靠的伙伴。我们还能去哪里寻求帮助呢？对此还有其他可行的政策吗？
Jeffuk88
Why WOULDNT we kick them out if they genuinely invaded Greenland? Would we seriously try to play neutral
如果他们真的入侵了格陵兰岛，我们为什么不把他们赶出去？我们真的会保持中立吗
Overton_Glazier
That's usually the go-to for centrists, so probably?
这通常是中间派的首选，所以有可能？
darkwolf687
You know the funny thing about Neutrality is that it actually comes with certain obligations under international law iirc. We would still close the US bases - But we wouldn’t kick them out; we would detain any military personnel and equipment from the belligerents that are in or enter our territory until the conclusion of the war. I don’t know if there’s any danish forces in UK territory but they must be negligible if so. There’s 10k us personnel though!
If we aren’t willing to openly war with the US but they had technically started a war with Denmark by invading Greenland: we arrest all 10k troops here and say that we unfortunately have to hold them here under international law in order to maintain our neutrality. Until either Denmark acknowledges the annexation and formally surrenders it to end the conflict, or the US withdraws and formally ends the conflict, we are neutral and so duty bound to do this, sorry!
Of course the US could just decide fuck it, that’s war and invade us to force their release but we’re a much harder target than Greenland to just swoop in and take, and we’re in possession of nuclear weapons.
I don’t think this would ever actually happen but technically that is the obligation if we want to be neutral, and it is also very favourable to Denmark if it were to happen because man it’d only add to the domestic shit show for Trump as part of the fallout of his historically unpopular foreign war
你知道关于中立政策有趣的一点是，根据国际法，它实际上附带了一些义务，我记得是这样的。我们会关闭美国的军事基地——但我们不会驱逐他们；我们会扣押任何在我们领土内或进入我们领土的交战方的军事人员和装备，直到战争结束。我不知道有没有丹麦军队在英国领土上，但如果有的话，他们的数量肯定微不足道。然而这里有1万名美国军人！
如果我们不愿意公开与美国开战，但他们在入侵格陵兰岛这件事上已经实际上挑起了战争：我们会拘禁这里的1万名士兵，并声称根据国际法，我们不得不将他们扣留在这里以维护我们的中立立场，以维持我们的中立状态。除非丹麦正式承认这一吞并行为并投降奉上以结束冲突，或者美国撤军并正式结束冲突，否则我们仍将保持中立，并因此有义务这样做，不好意思！
当然，美国完全可以决定开草，那这就是战争了，然后入侵我们来迫使他们释放这些士兵，但我们是一个比格陵兰岛更难以被突然袭击并占领的目标，而且我们还拥有核武器。我认为这种情况实际上永远不会发生，但从技术层面上讲，如果我们想要保持中立，这就是必须履行的义务。而且如果这种情况真的发生，对丹麦来说也是有利的，因为天哪，这只会让特朗普的国内烂摊子雪上加霜，变成他那场历来不受欢迎的对外战争所带来的后果之一。
Cynical_Classicist
The US is a threat, and the UK needs to realise this rather than keep up this nonsense that we must butter the fascist up.
美国是一个威胁，英国需要意识到这一点，而不是继续扯淡说我们必须跪舔法西斯。
Corvid187
They're also an ally, as inconvenient as that is. Ignoring that aspect of our relationship risks prematurely (and rather expensively) throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
但他们也是盟友，尽管不顺心。忽视我们关系的这一方面，就有过早地把婴儿连同洗澡水一起倒掉的风险（而且代价相当高昂）。
White_Immigrant
They're not our ally, we're a vassal state in their empire. Our special relationship costs us hugely both financially and in sovereignty.
他们不是我们的盟友，我们是他们帝国的附庸国。我们的特殊关系让我们付出了巨大的经济和主权代价。
Corvid187
Not really? If anything the UK is unique in the extent to which it has striven to preserve its ability to act independent of US approval. We have a close relationship with the US but, especially after their skullduggery in 1946 and 1956, we have been careful to ensure that never became an outright dependency.
This is why the UK invests disproportionately in areas like logistical support to bring them 'in house' where other nations like France delegate those areas more fully to the US. This is why the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is 8x the size of its next largest peer, and why the UK's airlift capacity at 4,000NMi is twice that of the armée de l'air's.
We don't tend to exercise this capacity a lot, since our interests do just naturally align with the US' most of the time, but we can and have used it when our goals have diverged, such as over the Falklands or Sierra Leone.
不全是如此？要说的话，英国的独特之处在于它一直努力保持自身独立于美国批准之外的行动能力。我们与美国关系密切，但鉴于他们在 1946 年和 1956 年的种种不正当行为，我们一直谨慎行事，确保这种关系不会演变成完全的依附关系。
这就是为什么英国在诸如后勤支持等领域的投入比例如此之高，以便将其“内部化”，而像法国这样的国家则将这些领域更多地委托给美国。这就是为什么皇家海军辅助舰队的规模是其第二大同类舰队的8倍，且英国的4000海里航程空运能力是法国空军的两倍。
我们通常不会频繁使用这种能力，因为我们的利益在大多数时候确实与美国的利益自然一致，但当我们的目标出现分歧时（比如在福克兰群岛或塞拉利昂问题上），我们能够并确实使用过这种能力。
Luke_4686
It doesn’t help that we basically can’t use our nuclear deterrent without the US. Unlike France who decided to go completely independent with there’s.
离了美国，我们基本上无法使用我们的核威慑，这一事实也没有帮助。不像法国决定（在核力量上）完全独立。
Corvid187
This is widely repeated by incorrect.
The UK has full operational control over its nuclear deterrent. It is able to use it without us permission however it wishes. The US couldn't stop us even if we decided to glass Washington itself.
这种说法是错误的，且被广泛错误地重复。
英国完全拥有其核威慑力量的运作控制权。它能够按照自己的意愿在未经美国许可的情况下使用这些核武器。即便我们决定将华盛顿整个城市夷为平地，美国也无法阻止我们。
grumpsaboy
That's a lie.
Trident is fully under our control. It's an analog system. Input to the missile is fed through a wired connection to the submarine. The guidance is an internal gyroscope so no external systems can affect it such as GPS spoofing.
The US has absolutely no say as to whether we press fire or not.
那是个谎言。
三叉戟完全在我们的控制之下。这是一个模拟系统。导弹的输入通过有线连接到潜艇上。制导靠一个内部陀螺仪，所以没有外部系统（比如GPS欺骗）能影响它。
对于我们是否发射，美国绝对没有发言权。
Puzzleheaded_Bed5132
They have to be returned to the US every few years for maintenance. Unless we can do that ourselves, we should look to alternatives.
它们每隔几年就得送回美国进行维护。除非我们自己能做到这一点，否则我们应该寻求其他选项。
grumpsaboy
We do have a small maintenance facility although it isn't large enough for our entire stockpile.
However a Trident missile has got a seven year maintenance schedule and we can expand that maintenance facility within seven years if so required.
It does come with slight flaws as you note, but trident has a longer range than the m51, it is a quicker missile making it more difficult to intercept, and carries 12 warheads per missile instead of 10.
We got a cheaper deal and the only thing that you can really criticize us for is not making a maintenance facility big enough for all our own missiles which was entirely our choice and not something mandated by the agreement.
我们确实有一个小型的维护设施，不过它的规模还不足以维护我们所有的库存弹头。
然而，一枚“三叉戟”导弹的维护周期为七年，如果需要的话，我们可以在七年之内扩建这个维护设施。
正如你所指出的，它确实存在一些小的缺陷，但“三叉戟”导弹的射程比M51更远，它速度更快，因此更难以拦截，而且每枚导弹携带12枚弹头而非10 枚。
我们得到了一个更划算的交易，而你唯一能批评我们的就是没有把维护设施扩大到足以维护我们所有导弹的规模，但这完全是我们的选择，并非协议所规定的强制要求。
ErikChnmmr
Close all USA bases, dump all 880 mil in American bonds. Force the USA to default
关闭所有美国基地，抛售所有8.8亿美元的美国债券。迫使美国违约
Revolutionary-Mode75
billion mate, it 800 billion in US American bonds.
单位是十亿美元，伙计，8000亿美元的美国债券。
dr-broodles
It’s way way more than that. The UK holds more US debt than the EU.
远不止这些。英国持有的美国国债比整个欧盟还多。
CaptMelonfishCheshire
Prepared yes, but we shouldn't be making a move yet. Trump is obviously the vindictive type so we don't want to be rocking that boat further. That said, we need to lay the groundwork to have them pack up and leave quickly. This is going to be a hell of a tightrope to walk
肯定要准备，但我们现在还不该行动。特朗普显然是一个报复心很强的人，所以我们不想让局势进一步恶化。也就是说，我们需要先做好让他们收拾东西，迅速离开的基础工作。这tm将是一次艰难的走钢丝
Tricky_Peace
Have to agree with him. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where we have to kick them out, but we ought to have a plan, and the US should be informed that any military action against Greenland will result in them being removed from the UK.
我不得不赞同他的观点。我不认为我们已经到了必须把他们赶出去的地步，但我们应该有一个计划，而且美国应该被告知，任何针对格陵兰岛的军事行动都将导致他们被赶出英国。
For the UK to prepare properly for that they must invest significantly in the military. How much funding would Zack Polanski give the military?
英国要做好充分准备，就必须大力投资军事。扎克·波兰斯基会给军方多少资金？
JaMs_buzz
Polanski wants to try to setup a European alternative to NATO, and to gradually ween ourselves off of US dependence.
波兰斯基想尝试建立一个欧洲的替代版北约，并逐渐使我们摆脱对美国的依赖。
Corvid187
The policy is fine enough if you ignore the fact that Europe has routinely failed to align enough to develop such an organisation. The difficult question is how much funding is that policy going to have?
Even in a joint European frxwork, you're still going to have to replace the range of capabilities that Europe as a whole currently relies on the US for, and that is going to cost some amount more than we currently spend on our armed forces. Polanski has been very reluctant to discuss how much of an increase he is willing to provide to cover those gaps.
如果忽略欧洲长期以来未能达成足够一致以建立这样一个组织这一事实，那么这项政策还算不错。但难题在于，这项政策将获得多少资金？
即便是在欧洲的联合框架内，你仍需弥补欧洲整体目前在某些方面依赖美国所提供的能力的缺失，而这将比我们目前在军队方面的开支多出一些数额。波兰斯基一直不愿讨论他愿意为此提供多少额外资金来填补这些缺口。
James20k
The policy is fine enough if you ignore the fact that Europe has routinely failed to align enough to develop such an organisation. The difficult question is how much funding is that policy going to have?
There's no other organisation large enough to make it work. There's simply nobody else to turn to. Its either attempt to get the EU to form a cohesive fighting force, or go it alone. Its a crap state of affairs, but its the best place to make an effort
The EU is the only major reliable partner that the UK has of a similar size to the US. Where else can we go, is there another policy here which is even remotely feasible?
“如果忽略欧洲长期以来未能达成足够一致以建立这样一个组织这一事实，那么这项政策还算不错。但难题在于，这项政策将获得多少资金？”
没有其他组织规模大到足以使其运作起来。根本没有其他可以求助的对象。要么试图让欧盟组建一支团结的战斗力量，要么就独自行动。这种状况很糟糕，但这也是我们努力的最佳时机。
欧盟是英国唯一一个与美国规模相当且可靠的伙伴。我们还能去哪里寻求帮助呢？对此还有其他可行的政策吗？
Jeffuk88
Why WOULDNT we kick them out if they genuinely invaded Greenland? Would we seriously try to play neutral
如果他们真的入侵了格陵兰岛，我们为什么不把他们赶出去？我们真的会保持中立吗
Overton_Glazier
That's usually the go-to for centrists, so probably?
这通常是中间派的首选，所以有可能？
darkwolf687
You know the funny thing about Neutrality is that it actually comes with certain obligations under international law iirc. We would still close the US bases - But we wouldn’t kick them out; we would detain any military personnel and equipment from the belligerents that are in or enter our territory until the conclusion of the war. I don’t know if there’s any danish forces in UK territory but they must be negligible if so. There’s 10k us personnel though!
If we aren’t willing to openly war with the US but they had technically started a war with Denmark by invading Greenland: we arrest all 10k troops here and say that we unfortunately have to hold them here under international law in order to maintain our neutrality. Until either Denmark acknowledges the annexation and formally surrenders it to end the conflict, or the US withdraws and formally ends the conflict, we are neutral and so duty bound to do this, sorry!
Of course the US could just decide fuck it, that’s war and invade us to force their release but we’re a much harder target than Greenland to just swoop in and take, and we’re in possession of nuclear weapons.
I don’t think this would ever actually happen but technically that is the obligation if we want to be neutral, and it is also very favourable to Denmark if it were to happen because man it’d only add to the domestic shit show for Trump as part of the fallout of his historically unpopular foreign war
你知道关于中立政策有趣的一点是，根据国际法，它实际上附带了一些义务，我记得是这样的。我们会关闭美国的军事基地——但我们不会驱逐他们；我们会扣押任何在我们领土内或进入我们领土的交战方的军事人员和装备，直到战争结束。我不知道有没有丹麦军队在英国领土上，但如果有的话，他们的数量肯定微不足道。然而这里有1万名美国军人！
如果我们不愿意公开与美国开战，但他们在入侵格陵兰岛这件事上已经实际上挑起了战争：我们会拘禁这里的1万名士兵，并声称根据国际法，我们不得不将他们扣留在这里以维护我们的中立立场，以维持我们的中立状态。除非丹麦正式承认这一吞并行为并投降奉上以结束冲突，或者美国撤军并正式结束冲突，否则我们仍将保持中立，并因此有义务这样做，不好意思！
当然，美国完全可以决定开草，那这就是战争了，然后入侵我们来迫使他们释放这些士兵，但我们是一个比格陵兰岛更难以被突然袭击并占领的目标，而且我们还拥有核武器。我认为这种情况实际上永远不会发生，但从技术层面上讲，如果我们想要保持中立，这就是必须履行的义务。而且如果这种情况真的发生，对丹麦来说也是有利的，因为天哪，这只会让特朗普的国内烂摊子雪上加霜，变成他那场历来不受欢迎的对外战争所带来的后果之一。
Cynical_Classicist
The US is a threat, and the UK needs to realise this rather than keep up this nonsense that we must butter the fascist up.
美国是一个威胁，英国需要意识到这一点，而不是继续扯淡说我们必须跪舔法西斯。
Corvid187
They're also an ally, as inconvenient as that is. Ignoring that aspect of our relationship risks prematurely (and rather expensively) throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
但他们也是盟友，尽管不顺心。忽视我们关系的这一方面，就有过早地把婴儿连同洗澡水一起倒掉的风险（而且代价相当高昂）。
White_Immigrant
They're not our ally, we're a vassal state in their empire. Our special relationship costs us hugely both financially and in sovereignty.
他们不是我们的盟友，我们是他们帝国的附庸国。我们的特殊关系让我们付出了巨大的经济和主权代价。
Corvid187
Not really? If anything the UK is unique in the extent to which it has striven to preserve its ability to act independent of US approval. We have a close relationship with the US but, especially after their skullduggery in 1946 and 1956, we have been careful to ensure that never became an outright dependency.
This is why the UK invests disproportionately in areas like logistical support to bring them 'in house' where other nations like France delegate those areas more fully to the US. This is why the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is 8x the size of its next largest peer, and why the UK's airlift capacity at 4,000NMi is twice that of the armée de l'air's.
We don't tend to exercise this capacity a lot, since our interests do just naturally align with the US' most of the time, but we can and have used it when our goals have diverged, such as over the Falklands or Sierra Leone.
不全是如此？要说的话，英国的独特之处在于它一直努力保持自身独立于美国批准之外的行动能力。我们与美国关系密切，但鉴于他们在 1946 年和 1956 年的种种不正当行为，我们一直谨慎行事，确保这种关系不会演变成完全的依附关系。
这就是为什么英国在诸如后勤支持等领域的投入比例如此之高，以便将其“内部化”，而像法国这样的国家则将这些领域更多地委托给美国。这就是为什么皇家海军辅助舰队的规模是其第二大同类舰队的8倍，且英国的4000海里航程空运能力是法国空军的两倍。
我们通常不会频繁使用这种能力，因为我们的利益在大多数时候确实与美国的利益自然一致，但当我们的目标出现分歧时（比如在福克兰群岛或塞拉利昂问题上），我们能够并确实使用过这种能力。
Luke_4686
It doesn’t help that we basically can’t use our nuclear deterrent without the US. Unlike France who decided to go completely independent with there’s.
离了美国，我们基本上无法使用我们的核威慑，这一事实也没有帮助。不像法国决定（在核力量上）完全独立。
Corvid187
This is widely repeated by incorrect.
The UK has full operational control over its nuclear deterrent. It is able to use it without us permission however it wishes. The US couldn't stop us even if we decided to glass Washington itself.
这种说法是错误的，且被广泛错误地重复。
英国完全拥有其核威慑力量的运作控制权。它能够按照自己的意愿在未经美国许可的情况下使用这些核武器。即便我们决定将华盛顿整个城市夷为平地，美国也无法阻止我们。
grumpsaboy
That's a lie.
Trident is fully under our control. It's an analog system. Input to the missile is fed through a wired connection to the submarine. The guidance is an internal gyroscope so no external systems can affect it such as GPS spoofing.
The US has absolutely no say as to whether we press fire or not.
那是个谎言。
三叉戟完全在我们的控制之下。这是一个模拟系统。导弹的输入通过有线连接到潜艇上。制导靠一个内部陀螺仪，所以没有外部系统（比如GPS欺骗）能影响它。
对于我们是否发射，美国绝对没有发言权。
Puzzleheaded_Bed5132
They have to be returned to the US every few years for maintenance. Unless we can do that ourselves, we should look to alternatives.
它们每隔几年就得送回美国进行维护。除非我们自己能做到这一点，否则我们应该寻求其他选项。
grumpsaboy
We do have a small maintenance facility although it isn't large enough for our entire stockpile.
However a Trident missile has got a seven year maintenance schedule and we can expand that maintenance facility within seven years if so required.
It does come with slight flaws as you note, but trident has a longer range than the m51, it is a quicker missile making it more difficult to intercept, and carries 12 warheads per missile instead of 10.
We got a cheaper deal and the only thing that you can really criticize us for is not making a maintenance facility big enough for all our own missiles which was entirely our choice and not something mandated by the agreement.
我们确实有一个小型的维护设施，不过它的规模还不足以维护我们所有的库存弹头。
然而，一枚“三叉戟”导弹的维护周期为七年，如果需要的话，我们可以在七年之内扩建这个维护设施。
正如你所指出的，它确实存在一些小的缺陷，但“三叉戟”导弹的射程比M51更远，它速度更快，因此更难以拦截，而且每枚导弹携带12枚弹头而非10 枚。
我们得到了一个更划算的交易，而你唯一能批评我们的就是没有把维护设施扩大到足以维护我们所有导弹的规模，但这完全是我们的选择，并非协议所规定的强制要求。
ErikChnmmr
Close all USA bases, dump all 880 mil in American bonds. Force the USA to default
关闭所有美国基地，抛售所有8.8亿美元的美国债券。迫使美国违约
Revolutionary-Mode75
billion mate, it 800 billion in US American bonds.
单位是十亿美元，伙计，8000亿美元的美国债券。
dr-broodles
It’s way way more than that. The UK holds more US debt than the EU.
远不止这些。英国持有的美国国债比整个欧盟还多。
CaptMelonfishCheshire
Prepared yes, but we shouldn't be making a move yet. Trump is obviously the vindictive type so we don't want to be rocking that boat further. That said, we need to lay the groundwork to have them pack up and leave quickly. This is going to be a hell of a tightrope to walk
肯定要准备，但我们现在还不该行动。特朗普显然是一个报复心很强的人，所以我们不想让局势进一步恶化。也就是说，我们需要先做好让他们收拾东西，迅速离开的基础工作。这tm将是一次艰难的走钢丝
Tricky_Peace
Have to agree with him. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where we have to kick them out, but we ought to have a plan, and the US should be informed that any military action against Greenland will result in them being removed from the UK.
我不得不赞同他的观点。我不认为我们已经到了必须把他们赶出去的地步，但我们应该有一个计划，而且美国应该被告知，任何针对格陵兰岛的军事行动都将导致他们被赶出英国。
很赞 3
收藏