世界最恶劣的军火商：战争生意
正文翻译
图
图
评论翻译
During D-Day German manpower shortages were so bad, they most of the bunkers of Atlantic Wall were not even manned. Main reason why Rommel was not preset in France at the time of landing, was to get personal audience with fuhrer, to request more of everything, as he critically lacked in every aspect.
Despite being not just on defense, but on defensive against amphibious assault from sea(the worst conditions for attackers), Germans lost twice as many men during D-Day. Allied forces lost "only" ~4500 men during entire day, landing on 55 mile long beach strip. This is how bad things were for Germans. If defenses were properly staffed and supplied, even to minimum standard, this day would be known as L-Day. with becahes running with blood and bodies washing ashore for weeks after event.
And even despite all that German geriatrics and teenagers put up ferocious defense, resulting in Soviets covering 4 times the distance, than allies did, despite former facing at the most 20% of Wehrmacht battle-ready troops and Bagration starting 3 weeks after D-Day.
诺曼底登陆时，德军的人力短缺严重到大西洋壁垒的大部分碉堡都无人驻守。隆美尔当时不在法国的关键原因是他正赶赴元首大本营请求增援——他当时在各方面都捉襟见肘。
尽管德军处于防御态势（还是对抗最不利的海上两栖进攻），其在登陆日当天的伤亡却是盟军的两倍。盟军在55英里长的海滩全天仅损失约4500人，可见德军处境之艰难。若防御工事达到最低标准的兵力与补给，这天本应被称为"大屠杀日"，鲜血将染红海滩，尸体会随潮水冲刷数周。
即便如此，由老人和少年组成的德军仍然顽强抵抗，导致苏军在巴格拉季昂的行动（比登陆日晚三周发起）中推进的距离是盟军的四倍，尽管苏军面对的德军可战之兵不足20%。
Every war US started since end WW2, it was fighting against grossly outmatched foes. Ukraine War is a perfect example of what will happen if US were to engage in open conflict with China. But a lot worse... for US.
China has 4 times bigger population, so they can convert a lot more men into soldiers.
二战后美国发动的每场战争的对手都与美国实力悬殊，乌克兰战争完美预示了中美公开冲突的结局，但对美国而言会更糟。
中国人口是美国的四倍，它可以动员更多士兵。
China military is technologically more advanced than American military is. Aside of small arms, US is fielding mostly stuff that is 40+ years old. And half of it was not that great to begin with. Like Patriots are complete trash as AA system... or even in their anti-ballistic capacity. Having failed every step of the way, when they were deployed. With their imaginary superiority existing solely on paper in fake reports. US Navy is ordering more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, as things like Zumwalt was a complete bust. F-35 is a (barely) flying extremely expensive disaster. Etc.
中国军事技术已超越美国。除轻武器外，美军的装备多是40年前的老古董，其中半数本就性能平平。爱国者导弹作为防空系统纯属垃圾，反导能力同样糟糕，实战部署步步失败，所谓的优势只存在于虚假报告的纸面上。海军增购伯克级驱逐舰是因为朱姆沃尔特级彻底失败。F-35是勉强能飞的昂贵灾难。
And do not even get me started on China manufacturing capacity. When entirety of NATO cant compete with Russian MIC in terms of manufacturing, then it wont even be funny in comparing them to China absolutely insane manufacturing capabilities.
And then there is training, then there is leftist cancer, there is corruption, etc.
更别提中国的制造业能力了——当整个北约的军工产能都无法与俄罗斯相比时，与中国疯狂的制造能力对比简直就是笑话。
还有训练水平、左派思想毒瘤、腐败问题等等。
Any notion that US even stands a chance against China is complete and utter nonsense. Only limit there is that China lacks blue-water navy. But with their manufacturing capacity and them already building test-carrier, they will overcome this issue in a decade or less. But as far as it comes fighting in or near China, US is fucked.
任何认为美国能对抗中国的想法都荒谬至极。中国唯一的短板是缺乏远洋海军，但以其制造能力，加上已在建造的试验航母，中国十年内就能克服这个问题。至于在中国周边开战？美国必败无疑。
@ailinchong7506
Awesomely informative article thanks Ben for your comprehensively detailed analysis most enlightening & Riveting article as always brilliantly & eloquently articulated
这篇信息量巨大的文章太棒了，感谢本如此全面细致的分析。一如既往地富有启发性和吸引力，行文流畅、表达精彩。
@chrishoff402
The chart is slightly off, Russia's defense budget topped $100 Billion during the current war in Ukraine. NATO and the USA combined outspend Russia 17 to1. Judging by their ability to produce more artillery shells than the West we have a great deal more corruption and waste.
图表稍有偏差，俄罗斯在乌克兰战争期间的国防预算已突破1000亿美元。虽然北约和美国的总军费开支是俄罗斯的17倍，但从他们能比西方生产更多炮弹来看，我们的腐败和浪费问题要严重得多。
@travismbuyiseni7750
Ben how can I be well informed about politics just like you? I try to read politics new but none of them give me a sufficient clue on what is going. I want to open a political channel just like you but in my native language.
本，怎样才能像你一样深入了解政治？我尝试阅读政治新闻，但没有一个能让我充分理解正在发生的事情。我想开一个像你这样的政治频道，但是用我的母语。
@PeriferijaPeriferije
I'm not Ben but want to encourage you ..that's a great idea ...more informed ppl we have ..we can get better results...
you have to read a lot from different sources .or watch a few channels and put it into context of your country and region dealing with well sourced facts and then give your opinion clearly stating what you base it on...
do it ...failure is guaranteed if you don't even try ..
best of luck ..
我不是本，但我想鼓励你...这是个好主意...我们拥有的知情人士越多...就能取得更好的结果...
你需要从不同的来源大量阅读，或者观看一些频道，结合你所在国家和地区的背景，基于可靠的事实依据，然后清楚地陈述你的观点...
去做吧...如果连尝试都不敢，失败就是必然的...
祝你好运...
@cargotrailerkenny
Just to be the devil's advocate, isn't there a discrepancy in how much weapons are actually built in the US based on the fact that the US is a privatized for profit military industrial complex and places like Russia or China the weapons industry is owned by the state (no profit?) and therefore can produce weapons at a small fraction of the cost the US pays? Therefore they are able to build many more weapons for less money.. skewing all the stats simply based on spending...
Just wondering why that is not included in the analysis..
作为反方观点，美国武器的实际生产量是否存在偏差？因为美国是私有化、以盈利为目的的军工复合体，而俄罗斯或中国的武器工业是国有的（不以盈利为目的？），因此能以美国成本的一小部分生产武器。所以他们能用更少的钱造更多武器...仅基于开支的数据会产生偏差...
我只是好奇为什么分析中没有考虑这一点...
@merlin5662
I reckon it's due the fact that we haven't necessarily seen massive uptake in weapon manufacturing from countries like China. Ik they are being aggressive in SCS and Taiwan but nothing (from what I recall) indicates building Armaments.
Secondly, China has been signing security deals with OCE and African countries in exchange for military bases
我认为这是因为我们并未看到中国等国大幅增加武器生产。虽然我知道他们在南海和台湾（地区）问题上表现强硬，但据我所知没有迹象表明他们在扩充军备。
其次，中国一直在与大洋洲和非洲国家签署安全协议以换取军事基地。
@nisantadalabehera3638
It's not the amount of spending but the amount of weapons manufactured too. Why does the US have the second highest stockpile of nukes after the so-called great terror Russia? They have probably 100-200 nukes more or less. Shouldn't the peace loving nation work on dismantling nukes as compared to refurbishment of the old ones and making absolutely new ones.
And it's more than the weapons industry. Just look at the amount of military bases the supposed defender of peace has across the world. Why do they need 800+ bases when the next country to them would be Russia like a single digit worth of bases.
问题不仅在于开支金额，还在于武器生产的数量。为什么美国拥有仅次于所谓"大恐怖"的俄罗斯的第二大核武库？他们大概多出100-200枚核弹。这个热爱和平的国家不是应该致力于拆除核武器，而不是翻新旧的核弹和制造全新核弹的吗？
而且不只是武器工业的问题。看看这个所谓的和平捍卫者在全球有多少军事基地。当排名第二的俄罗斯只有个位数基地时，他们为什么需要800多个基地？
@cargotrailerkenny
@nisantadalabehera3638
I agree with everything you say about nukes etc . That's not the point of my inquiry into the dollars spent every year on weapons. I'm sure we still lead the world in propagating war and terror. I simply was wondering when I see analysis of weapons spending by different countries in the world that if one applies a little critical thinking the cost doesn't necessarily give one an accurate view of how that translates to actual weaponry. I'm not making an argument for who is the most pernicious force in the world of course it's the United States, I would just like to get a little more accurate view of actual production of weaponry and how that stacks up against the rest of the world.
我完全同意你关于核武器等的观点，但这并非我调查每年军费开支的重点，因为美国确实仍是全球战争与恐怖的主要传播者。我只是疑惑，当我们分析各国军费开支时，若稍加批判性的思考就会发现：军费数字未必能准确反映实际武器的产量。我当然不是在争论谁是世界最恶毒的势力（显然是美国），我只是希望能更准确地了解实际武器的产量及其全球对比。
@aptorres01
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most PROFITABLE, surly the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one that profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." - Major General Smedley Butler
And apparently, so is genuknowwhat.
"战争就是诈骗，历来如此。它可能是最古老的、肯定是最赚钱的、无疑是最恶毒的勾当。这是唯一具有国际规模的骗局，也是唯一用美元计算收益、用生命计算损失的的骗局。"——斯梅德利·巴特勒少将
显然，基因武器（或其他大规模杀伤性武器）也是如此。
@Kirin2022
A minor correction: China has not fought a war since the 1979-1991 conflict with Vietnam. China lost iniitially due to a misbegotten ideological leveling of military command hierarchies but turned it around by the end to take every military obxtive from Vietnam.
需要稍作修正：中国自1979-1991年对越冲突后再未参与战争。冲突初期因错误的意识形态导致军事指挥体系混乱而失利，但最终扭转局势并夺取了所有的军事目标。
@geoeconomics5629
For the USA it is imperative that no Eurasian challengee emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America
对美国而言，绝不能让欧亚大陆出现能主导该地区进而挑战美国的竞争者。
@gregmclaughlin-m5n
The fact we haven’t heard a word from the arms lobby tells me they are perfectly happy with events unfolding around the world, and, that the future looks good. It’s not going to pretty, buckle up people
军火游说团体至今保持沉默，这说明他们对全球局势的发展非常满意，前景看好。未来不会太平，大家系好安全带吧。
@MelanieJojo
All the major players and speakers on current events are the greatest arms dealers international. Russia, France, Germany, United States. All the vocal parties in current conflicts this is thier industry.
所有当前国际事件的主要参与者和发言者——俄罗斯、法国、德国、美国——都是顶级军火贩子。这些在冲突中高调的国家，军火就是他们的产业。
@lamclate956
Military spending should be proportional to population. China's population is three times that of the U.S., yet the U.S., with such a small population, spends several times more on its military than China does.
军费开支应与人口成正比，中国的人口是美国的3倍，但美国这个人口小国的军费却是中国的数倍。
@dwaynestomp5462
In the first place, it's estimated to take something like 6 years to replenish the US stockpiles of expendables, and in the second, the US has been trying to get the EU to increase it's own production of armd and munitions for years. The US is not able to subsidize Europe's defense anymore.
首先，美国补充消耗性武器库存预计需要6年；其次，美国多年来一直试图让欧盟增加武器弹药的产量。美国已无力继续补贴欧洲的防务了。
@yihchiehseeto225
Exporting weapons for defense (or offence) is what a Govt perceives as a threat. To constantly fan the flames of hatred and fear, to get the Govt to spend more tax dollars. That is the real truth. Only one group spews out media everyday of war with your neighbors. How come there is no push for creating trade opportunities, and building relationship with each other? We have to ask the right questions and see who really benefits.
武器出口（无论防御或进攻）源于政府感知的威胁。不断煽动仇恨恐惧，迫使政府投入更多税款——这才是真相。只有某个集团天天在媒体上鼓吹与邻国开战。为何不推动贸易机会、建立友好的关系呢？我们必须提出正确的问题，看清谁才是真正的受益者。
Despite being not just on defense, but on defensive against amphibious assault from sea(the worst conditions for attackers), Germans lost twice as many men during D-Day. Allied forces lost "only" ~4500 men during entire day, landing on 55 mile long beach strip. This is how bad things were for Germans. If defenses were properly staffed and supplied, even to minimum standard, this day would be known as L-Day. with becahes running with blood and bodies washing ashore for weeks after event.
And even despite all that German geriatrics and teenagers put up ferocious defense, resulting in Soviets covering 4 times the distance, than allies did, despite former facing at the most 20% of Wehrmacht battle-ready troops and Bagration starting 3 weeks after D-Day.
诺曼底登陆时，德军的人力短缺严重到大西洋壁垒的大部分碉堡都无人驻守。隆美尔当时不在法国的关键原因是他正赶赴元首大本营请求增援——他当时在各方面都捉襟见肘。
尽管德军处于防御态势（还是对抗最不利的海上两栖进攻），其在登陆日当天的伤亡却是盟军的两倍。盟军在55英里长的海滩全天仅损失约4500人，可见德军处境之艰难。若防御工事达到最低标准的兵力与补给，这天本应被称为"大屠杀日"，鲜血将染红海滩，尸体会随潮水冲刷数周。
即便如此，由老人和少年组成的德军仍然顽强抵抗，导致苏军在巴格拉季昂的行动（比登陆日晚三周发起）中推进的距离是盟军的四倍，尽管苏军面对的德军可战之兵不足20%。
Every war US started since end WW2, it was fighting against grossly outmatched foes. Ukraine War is a perfect example of what will happen if US were to engage in open conflict with China. But a lot worse... for US.
China has 4 times bigger population, so they can convert a lot more men into soldiers.
二战后美国发动的每场战争的对手都与美国实力悬殊，乌克兰战争完美预示了中美公开冲突的结局，但对美国而言会更糟。
中国人口是美国的四倍，它可以动员更多士兵。
China military is technologically more advanced than American military is. Aside of small arms, US is fielding mostly stuff that is 40+ years old. And half of it was not that great to begin with. Like Patriots are complete trash as AA system... or even in their anti-ballistic capacity. Having failed every step of the way, when they were deployed. With their imaginary superiority existing solely on paper in fake reports. US Navy is ordering more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, as things like Zumwalt was a complete bust. F-35 is a (barely) flying extremely expensive disaster. Etc.
中国军事技术已超越美国。除轻武器外，美军的装备多是40年前的老古董，其中半数本就性能平平。爱国者导弹作为防空系统纯属垃圾，反导能力同样糟糕，实战部署步步失败，所谓的优势只存在于虚假报告的纸面上。海军增购伯克级驱逐舰是因为朱姆沃尔特级彻底失败。F-35是勉强能飞的昂贵灾难。
And do not even get me started on China manufacturing capacity. When entirety of NATO cant compete with Russian MIC in terms of manufacturing, then it wont even be funny in comparing them to China absolutely insane manufacturing capabilities.
And then there is training, then there is leftist cancer, there is corruption, etc.
更别提中国的制造业能力了——当整个北约的军工产能都无法与俄罗斯相比时，与中国疯狂的制造能力对比简直就是笑话。
还有训练水平、左派思想毒瘤、腐败问题等等。
Any notion that US even stands a chance against China is complete and utter nonsense. Only limit there is that China lacks blue-water navy. But with their manufacturing capacity and them already building test-carrier, they will overcome this issue in a decade or less. But as far as it comes fighting in or near China, US is fucked.
任何认为美国能对抗中国的想法都荒谬至极。中国唯一的短板是缺乏远洋海军，但以其制造能力，加上已在建造的试验航母，中国十年内就能克服这个问题。至于在中国周边开战？美国必败无疑。
@ailinchong7506
Awesomely informative article thanks Ben for your comprehensively detailed analysis most enlightening & Riveting article as always brilliantly & eloquently articulated
这篇信息量巨大的文章太棒了，感谢本如此全面细致的分析。一如既往地富有启发性和吸引力，行文流畅、表达精彩。
@chrishoff402
The chart is slightly off, Russia's defense budget topped $100 Billion during the current war in Ukraine. NATO and the USA combined outspend Russia 17 to1. Judging by their ability to produce more artillery shells than the West we have a great deal more corruption and waste.
图表稍有偏差，俄罗斯在乌克兰战争期间的国防预算已突破1000亿美元。虽然北约和美国的总军费开支是俄罗斯的17倍，但从他们能比西方生产更多炮弹来看，我们的腐败和浪费问题要严重得多。
@travismbuyiseni7750
Ben how can I be well informed about politics just like you? I try to read politics new but none of them give me a sufficient clue on what is going. I want to open a political channel just like you but in my native language.
本，怎样才能像你一样深入了解政治？我尝试阅读政治新闻，但没有一个能让我充分理解正在发生的事情。我想开一个像你这样的政治频道，但是用我的母语。
@PeriferijaPeriferije
I'm not Ben but want to encourage you ..that's a great idea ...more informed ppl we have ..we can get better results...
you have to read a lot from different sources .or watch a few channels and put it into context of your country and region dealing with well sourced facts and then give your opinion clearly stating what you base it on...
do it ...failure is guaranteed if you don't even try ..
best of luck ..
我不是本，但我想鼓励你...这是个好主意...我们拥有的知情人士越多...就能取得更好的结果...
你需要从不同的来源大量阅读，或者观看一些频道，结合你所在国家和地区的背景，基于可靠的事实依据，然后清楚地陈述你的观点...
去做吧...如果连尝试都不敢，失败就是必然的...
祝你好运...
@cargotrailerkenny
Just to be the devil's advocate, isn't there a discrepancy in how much weapons are actually built in the US based on the fact that the US is a privatized for profit military industrial complex and places like Russia or China the weapons industry is owned by the state (no profit?) and therefore can produce weapons at a small fraction of the cost the US pays? Therefore they are able to build many more weapons for less money.. skewing all the stats simply based on spending...
Just wondering why that is not included in the analysis..
作为反方观点，美国武器的实际生产量是否存在偏差？因为美国是私有化、以盈利为目的的军工复合体，而俄罗斯或中国的武器工业是国有的（不以盈利为目的？），因此能以美国成本的一小部分生产武器。所以他们能用更少的钱造更多武器...仅基于开支的数据会产生偏差...
我只是好奇为什么分析中没有考虑这一点...
@merlin5662
I reckon it's due the fact that we haven't necessarily seen massive uptake in weapon manufacturing from countries like China. Ik they are being aggressive in SCS and Taiwan but nothing (from what I recall) indicates building Armaments.
Secondly, China has been signing security deals with OCE and African countries in exchange for military bases
我认为这是因为我们并未看到中国等国大幅增加武器生产。虽然我知道他们在南海和台湾（地区）问题上表现强硬，但据我所知没有迹象表明他们在扩充军备。
其次，中国一直在与大洋洲和非洲国家签署安全协议以换取军事基地。
@nisantadalabehera3638
It's not the amount of spending but the amount of weapons manufactured too. Why does the US have the second highest stockpile of nukes after the so-called great terror Russia? They have probably 100-200 nukes more or less. Shouldn't the peace loving nation work on dismantling nukes as compared to refurbishment of the old ones and making absolutely new ones.
And it's more than the weapons industry. Just look at the amount of military bases the supposed defender of peace has across the world. Why do they need 800+ bases when the next country to them would be Russia like a single digit worth of bases.
问题不仅在于开支金额，还在于武器生产的数量。为什么美国拥有仅次于所谓"大恐怖"的俄罗斯的第二大核武库？他们大概多出100-200枚核弹。这个热爱和平的国家不是应该致力于拆除核武器，而不是翻新旧的核弹和制造全新核弹的吗？
而且不只是武器工业的问题。看看这个所谓的和平捍卫者在全球有多少军事基地。当排名第二的俄罗斯只有个位数基地时，他们为什么需要800多个基地？
@cargotrailerkenny
@nisantadalabehera3638
I agree with everything you say about nukes etc . That's not the point of my inquiry into the dollars spent every year on weapons. I'm sure we still lead the world in propagating war and terror. I simply was wondering when I see analysis of weapons spending by different countries in the world that if one applies a little critical thinking the cost doesn't necessarily give one an accurate view of how that translates to actual weaponry. I'm not making an argument for who is the most pernicious force in the world of course it's the United States, I would just like to get a little more accurate view of actual production of weaponry and how that stacks up against the rest of the world.
我完全同意你关于核武器等的观点，但这并非我调查每年军费开支的重点，因为美国确实仍是全球战争与恐怖的主要传播者。我只是疑惑，当我们分析各国军费开支时，若稍加批判性的思考就会发现：军费数字未必能准确反映实际武器的产量。我当然不是在争论谁是世界最恶毒的势力（显然是美国），我只是希望能更准确地了解实际武器的产量及其全球对比。
@aptorres01
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most PROFITABLE, surly the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one that profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." - Major General Smedley Butler
And apparently, so is genuknowwhat.
"战争就是诈骗，历来如此。它可能是最古老的、肯定是最赚钱的、无疑是最恶毒的勾当。这是唯一具有国际规模的骗局，也是唯一用美元计算收益、用生命计算损失的的骗局。"——斯梅德利·巴特勒少将
显然，基因武器（或其他大规模杀伤性武器）也是如此。
@Kirin2022
A minor correction: China has not fought a war since the 1979-1991 conflict with Vietnam. China lost iniitially due to a misbegotten ideological leveling of military command hierarchies but turned it around by the end to take every military obxtive from Vietnam.
需要稍作修正：中国自1979-1991年对越冲突后再未参与战争。冲突初期因错误的意识形态导致军事指挥体系混乱而失利，但最终扭转局势并夺取了所有的军事目标。
@geoeconomics5629
For the USA it is imperative that no Eurasian challengee emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America
对美国而言，绝不能让欧亚大陆出现能主导该地区进而挑战美国的竞争者。
@gregmclaughlin-m5n
The fact we haven’t heard a word from the arms lobby tells me they are perfectly happy with events unfolding around the world, and, that the future looks good. It’s not going to pretty, buckle up people
军火游说团体至今保持沉默，这说明他们对全球局势的发展非常满意，前景看好。未来不会太平，大家系好安全带吧。
@MelanieJojo
All the major players and speakers on current events are the greatest arms dealers international. Russia, France, Germany, United States. All the vocal parties in current conflicts this is thier industry.
所有当前国际事件的主要参与者和发言者——俄罗斯、法国、德国、美国——都是顶级军火贩子。这些在冲突中高调的国家，军火就是他们的产业。
@lamclate956
Military spending should be proportional to population. China's population is three times that of the U.S., yet the U.S., with such a small population, spends several times more on its military than China does.
军费开支应与人口成正比，中国的人口是美国的3倍，但美国这个人口小国的军费却是中国的数倍。
@dwaynestomp5462
In the first place, it's estimated to take something like 6 years to replenish the US stockpiles of expendables, and in the second, the US has been trying to get the EU to increase it's own production of armd and munitions for years. The US is not able to subsidize Europe's defense anymore.
首先，美国补充消耗性武器库存预计需要6年；其次，美国多年来一直试图让欧盟增加武器弹药的产量。美国已无力继续补贴欧洲的防务了。
@yihchiehseeto225
Exporting weapons for defense (or offence) is what a Govt perceives as a threat. To constantly fan the flames of hatred and fear, to get the Govt to spend more tax dollars. That is the real truth. Only one group spews out media everyday of war with your neighbors. How come there is no push for creating trade opportunities, and building relationship with each other? We have to ask the right questions and see who really benefits.
武器出口（无论防御或进攻）源于政府感知的威胁。不断煽动仇恨恐惧，迫使政府投入更多税款——这才是真相。只有某个集团天天在媒体上鼓吹与邻国开战。为何不推动贸易机会、建立友好的关系呢？我们必须提出正确的问题，看清谁才是真正的受益者。
