译文简介: 为什么中国觉得如果日本或者菲律宾开了战争的“第一枪”,美国就不能帮他们?

正文翻译: 原创翻译:龙腾网 翻译:dr_jessie

Why does China think that America is not allowed to fight a war if Japan or Philippines fire "the first shot?" (self.China)

为什么中国觉得如果日本或者菲律宾开了战争的“第一枪”,美国就不能帮他们? submitted 1 天 ago* by ChinassistAustraliaAre the reports my colleagues from China telling me true? They say Chinese media are telling the US that America is not allowed to assist Japan or Philippines if China can provoke either country into firing the first shot in a war. This is despite the fact that America has undertaken to defend both countries, without conditions.

Do China not understand that, whoever fires the first shot, China will still be seen as the aggressor?





1.ogami_itoUnited States 10 分/分11 分/分12 分/分 1 天 ago

It's not what the government and military leaders actually think, so does it matter?


2.rrigby1United States 4 分/分5 分/分6 分/分 1 天 ago

Chicken Little told me the sky is falling. I'm certain it is true! Don't you think it is true too? This is amazing! What should we all do? Should we go to the grocery store and buy some water? I'll go first! Awesome!


3.Tao_L 3 分/分4 分/分5 分/分 1 天 ago*

The short answer: They are wrong. The US military can destroy China whenever it wants, but only IF the US really wants.

However, with all due respect, I think you are wrong too; Being a true and responsible superpower, The US wants peace, as much as it wants to support Japan and Philippine.



Do China not understand that, whoever fires the first shot, China will still be seen as the aggressor?

You are suggesting that the US is eager to confront China with its vest military. Which, unfortunately, is not true.

If it's really within the interest of the US to wipe China off this planet, it would be done in 1989 when tanks rolled on Tian'anmen Square; or 1996 when China threatened Taiwan with nuclear missiles; or 1999 when China tried to smuggle a downed US drone from Yugoslavia; or 2001 when China rammed an US aircraft near Hainan. The list goes on and on. The American-Chinese relationship was much worse back then, and China literately had nothing to stop an US invasion. If the US really wants to kick China's ass, what have they been waiting for? Future Chinese carriers, or more reliable Chinese anti-satellite missiles?

But the US did not go to war. Despite what Fox News might have told you, the US is not stupid but pragmatic. The only explanation is - wait for it - the US is not willing to go to war.




A more recent example - the near miss in SCS. if the US really wanted to declare war against China as you kept telling us, a collision would be a perfect excuse. Just say it was impossible to maneuver and China's provocation was utterly unacceptable. Then boom, war started. All China's fault. Japanese navy blocks the East while US navy attack from the South. Set up a missile base in Hainan, aim at the Three Gorges Dam and wait for China to surrender. Too easy.

But once again, the US did not do that. By blaming 'inconvenient communication between two sides' rather than crushing that pathetic boat, the US has delivered a clear message: the US still wants China to be its dirty factory for as long as possible; and the US prefers to negotiate rather than military confrontation.

And China is going to exploit that until an anti-China (read: anti-money) government is elected in Washington DC.

Sorry for the long post





5.Tao_L 4 分/分5 分/分6 分/分 1 天 ago*Okay, dude, did I offend you anywhere? Or is that how you appreciate an explanation? Since we are on reddit, disagreement is fine, but please criticize rather than depreciate. Nevertheless, since I did use a 'lot' of words, I'll give you a TL;DR:

The US, as a country with the best military in the world can do anything they want. China will be declared war at not because who 'fired the first shot', but where US interests lie*. According to the past behavior and the current stance, I think the US would rather prefer peace with China (trade partner), whilst support Japan and Philippine (US allies) by other means (i.e. manipulate UN to put pressure on China).

Nevertheless, this is all based on the assumption that China is actually looking for war, which is still up for debate (and no, I'm not going to comment on the probability of that; we'll know within a few months).

*US interests include trust from other allies, therefore US would definitely go to war if Japan is attacked.

I admit that my post extended your topic a bit. But if you only want an answer to your title, rather than an impartial discussion:

Because they've received inaccurate information from shitty media.






6.coachbradb 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 1 天 ago

You use a few words to pretend he said nothing. His post was very well thought out and you are an ass.

你用几句话说得好像他(Tao_L )什么都没说一样。但其实他发的内容很仔细和有思想,而你就是坨*

7.giantboiler 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 1 天 ago

Are you illiterate? He gave you a well written explanation. What part do you not understand? This is a serious question. I'll try to parse it down for you if you really don't understand what he's saying. I'm trying to be nice.


8.Tao_L 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 1 天 agoYou use a lot of of words to say little of substance (EDITED).And your point is? I can write even more for an essay, or nothing at all if I have no interest to discuss.

You made a post on Reddit and the title is a question. I take it you are asking for opinions because that's the point of Internet - free exchange of thoughts. Being someone who tried to be explanative, I made a lengthy post to state what I believe and why.

It's okay; I know many people who don't appreciate other's expression of thoughts, especially over the Internet where demanding respect from strangers is utterly stupid. But ask a question then complain about how lengthy a reply is? I'm being trolled, am I not.

I'm sorry if you take this as an insult; I know you are going to downvote me, but please keep in mind, my friend: I'm trying to put substance into your post




9.MOOC0WMOO 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 1 天 agodoes it count if the first "shot" is chinarese fishermen boarding your ship with sharpened broomsticks?? cuz you know that's how this shit will start.


10.skyanvil 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 1 天 ago

Do China not understand that, whoever fires the first shot, China will still be seen as the aggressor?Not in China. And if US thinks otherwise, all the more reason for China to take a hard line.

This is despite the fact that America has undertaken to defend both countries, without conditions.

That's also "unilateralism", the kind that led to WWI.



“美国承诺过不管在任何情况下都会保护这两个国家。” 这也是单方面的,跟引发第一次世界大战的同盟国保护条约类型一样。

11.ogami_itoUnited States 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 1 天 agoIt's not unilateralism. USA has defense treaties with Philippines and Japan obligating it to go to war on behalf of those countries if they are attacked. All the nationalists who talk about "teaching Japan a lesson"... they don't seem to realize they are talking about going to war with the USA.


12.skyanvil -1 分/分0 分/分1 分/分 1 天 ago

It's not unilateralism. USA has defense treaties with Philippines and Japan obligating it to go to war on behalf of those countries if they are attacked."DEFENSE treaties", is a term subject to interpretation. If they attack other nations 1st, and US joins in, it would be "OFFENSE".

All the nationalists who talk about "teaching Japan a lesson"... they don't seem to realize they are talking about going to war with the USA.

Not really, they are talking about teaching JAPAN a lesson. If US wants to take the beating for Japan, that's a CHOICE.




13.ogami_itoUnited States 4 分/分5 分/分6 分/分 1 天 ago*

"DEFENSE treaties", is a term subject to interpretation.

Anything can be subject to interpretation if you want to look at it that way. The United States does not have any treaty with its allies stating that the USA will go to war on behalf of an ally if the ally declares war. The defense treaties in-place state that if the ally or the USA is attacked, the other will come to the attacked party's aid.

See Mutual Defence Treaty)

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan

Not really, they are talking about teaching JAPAN a lesson. If US wants to take the beating for Japan, that's a CHOICE.

Are you a nationalist? Do you believe what you just said?

Everything is a choice I guess. But some things are pretty well determined. In a war, Japan... even if Chinese people think Japan started it or it is justified by past histry... will be joined by the United States on Japan's side. This has so many obvious implications that hearing someone talk about it like you just did is... comedic. "If the US wants to take a beating for Japan"? Let's not consider the probability that war would destroy the global economy, stop all of China's trade, and Chinese people would starve. Let's not consider the near certainty that any war between the United States and China would be a nuclear war. You realize that if the USA DID NOT defend Japan, then all of it's treaties would be worthless, and there fore the US Dollar would be worthless, which means all banks (including China's) would fail. And you realize China is a net importer of food, right?






14.WMDistractionUnited States 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 1 天 agoIt's unfortunate how many Chinese truly think a war with Japan is simply a war with Japan. Nevermind that Japan would still probably win that war, they completely leave the US out of the picture when they talk about "wiping Japan off the map."


15.very_bad_advice 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 1 天 ago

"China" doesn't think that way - if you mean the decision makers of China. However if the casus belli of US is very poor, for example if a what occurs is that a Chinese fishing vessel is attacked by a Philippine Coast Guard (similar to this incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Guang_Da_Xing_No._28_incident)

And Philippines undertakes the same actions as it has done with Taiwan, and China takes punitive actions for that, and as a result US intercedes on behalf of Philippines and a maritime battle occurs where China loses 10,000 men and US 500 men give or take, I think the morale of the US public to sustain such a battle will be quite low.

Firstly, there will not be a way to control the media properly such that the incident is scrubbed to make it completely anti-China - there is political opposition in US that have vested interest in making a scene of 500 US lives lost in defense of a corrupt Filippino government that instigated the battle.

There might be pride in defeating the Chinese 20:1 in terms of men loss, but if anything the Chinese side will just soldier on at the overwhelming loss of life and wait till the US President orders a stand-down after expending his political capital.





16.wisty -5 分/分-4 分/分-3 分/分 1 天 ago

It discourages Japan from striking first. Madman Theory - if the US and Japan think that China is mad enough to start a war over a single shot, then they'll be more cautious.