扫码订阅

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?

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?

我从中国来的同事说的是真的吗?他们说中国媒体告诉他们,如果日本或者菲律宾先引起战争,美国就不能帮他们攻打中国。他们忽略了美国承诺过不管在任何情况下都会保护这两个国家的事实。

中国难道不明白吗?不管是谁引发了战争,中国都会被视为侵略者。

评论翻译:

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?

他们的政府和领导又不是这么想的,所以,这重要吗?

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!

《四眼天鸡》告诉我天马上要塌了!我确定这是真的!你难道不觉得这是真的吗?太让人吃惊了!我们该怎么办?!我们需不需要去杂货店买点水存着?我先去!!

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.

简单来说:他们错了。只要美国想,它随时可以摧毁中国。当然前提是美国真的这么想。

不过,恕我直言,我觉得你也错了。作为一个真正的、有责任感的超级大国,美国像支持日本和菲律宾一样同样希望和平。

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.

“中国难道不明白吗?不管是谁引发了战争,中国都会被视为侵略者。”

你这里在暗示美国渴望跟中国的军方对峙,但不幸的是,这是错的。如果美国真的想让中国从地球上消失,1989年中国的坦克碾过tiananmen广场的时候它就会这么做的;或者1996年中国用核导弹威胁台湾的时候;或者1999年中国想从南斯拉夫偷运美国坠落的无人机的时候;或者2001年中国在海南撞击美国飞机的时候。等等等等。那时候中美关系比现在差多了,中国说实在的没有任何办法阻挡美国的入侵。如果美国真的想教训中国,他们在等什么?等将来中国的拦截?或者等中国有更可靠的反卫星导弹?

但是美国没有开战。虽然FOX新闻可能是这么说的,但美国并不傻,美国信奉实用主义。唯一的解释是:美国从来没想开战。

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

一个最近的例子:中美军舰在中国南海险些发生碰撞。如果美国真的像你说的想对中国宣战,这一次撞击可以成为一个完美的攻击理由。只要说中国的挑衅完全无法接受。然后,嘣,开战。中国全责。日本海军封锁东边,美国海军攻击南面。在海南设一个导弹基地,瞄准三峡大坝,然后就等着中国投降吧。这太简单了,不过,再说一次,美国没有这么做。美国只是谴责了“双方的沟通不畅”,而没有直接撞击那艘军舰,它传达了一个信息:美国仍然想中国做它的脏工厂,越久越好。还有,美国更希望和平谈判,而不是军事冲突。

中国会一直利用这一点,直到华盛顿选了一个反中国(或者说反金钱)的政府。

抱歉发了这么长一段。

4.[delete]译注:这个人是楼主,可能是说楼上Tao_L说得又臭又长还不知所云。但是被删掉了,下面的5-8都是在回复他。

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.

好吧,我哪里冒犯到你了吗?或者这是你感谢我的方式?既然我们在reddit上,有不同的意见是可以的,但请你批评指教而不是肆意贬低。不过既然我的确说了很多,我应该告诉你“过长、勿读”。

美国,作为世界上军事能力最强的国家,它想做什么就能做什么。中国会不会被宣战不在于日本和菲律宾谁开第一枪,在于美国有没有兴趣。从过去美国的行为和现在的状态来看,我觉得美国更想和中国和平交往,同时用其他方式援助日本和菲律宾(比如操控联合国对中国施压)

不过,这些都是基于中国想开战的假设,而实际我们并不确定(我不会去评论他们想开战的可能性,几个月以后我们就知道了)

美国的兴趣在于其他联盟的信任,所以日本如果受到攻击,美国一定会开战。

我承认我发的内容有点超出了你的问题,但如果你只想得到你标题的答案,而不是一个全面的讨论。那么,答案是中国人从该死的媒体接收到了不真实的信息。

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.

你是文盲吗??他给你了一个很好的解释。哪一部分让你不理解了?我是认真在问。如果你真的不懂他在说什么,我来帮你分析。我会努力对你和善点。

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

“你说了这么多,但是完全没实质内容”(应该是引用的那个被删的回复)

所以你想说什么?如果我写论文,我可以写得更多,如果我没兴趣讨论,我一点都不会写。

你在reddit上发帖,而且标题是个问句。我以为你是想获得别人的意见,因为网络的重要性就是自由交流大家的想法。作为一个想解释到位的人,我写了很多来表达我所相信的以及为什么。。。

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.

如果这个所谓的首先“攻击”是中国的渔民用飞天扫帚登上你们的船呢?你们都知道这是怎么回事

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.

“中国难道没搞懂吗?不管是谁引发了战争,中国都会被视为侵略者”

在中国,不会。

“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.

这不是单方面的,美国跟日本和菲律宾签订了保护条约,当他们遭受攻击时,美国有责任代表这些国家交战。那些说“要给日本一点教训”的民族主义者根本没意识到这意味着跟美国开战。

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.

保护条约受制于“保护”的意思,如果他们先攻击其他国家,而且美国加入了,那就是“攻击”,而不是“保护”。

“那些说‘要给日本一点教训’的民族主义者根本没意识到这意味着跟美国开战。”

不尽然,他们说要给日本一点教训,如果美国想替日本承受,那也是个选择。

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?

“保护条约受制于‘保护’的意思”

美国没有任何条约说如果它的联盟国宣战美国是否会加入战争,但保护条约明确说了只要美国或者其同盟国受到攻击,另一方就会援助。(详见共同防御条约)。

“不尽然,他们说要给日本一点教训,如果美国想替日本承受,那也是个选择。”

你是个民族主义者吗?你真的相信你自己说的那些?

所有的事都能看成是一种选择,但是有些事是确定的,即使中国人认为是日本引发了战争,美国还是会站在日本那边。听你说的那些言论简直太可笑了。“如果美国想替日本承受”?暂且先不说这个战争会怎样毁灭全球经济、阻断中国所有的贸易、让所有中国人食物短缺到饿死。我们也不说中美战争会不会变成核战。你就说如果美国没有帮日本,所有的保护条约全都没有意义了,美元也就没价值了,所有银行,包括中国的,都会倒闭。你应该知道中国是个食物进口大国吧?

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."

不幸的是,多少中国人觉得跟日本开战就真的只是跟日本而已。就算不去想日本本身就有可能赢战争,在他们说“把日本赶出地图”的时候,他们完全忘了还有美国。

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.

中国不是这么想的——如果你说的是中国的决策者。

如果美国宣战的理由很站不住脚,比如说中国的渔船被菲律宾海岸巡逻队攻击了,而菲律宾的反应像它以前对台湾一样傲慢(注:2013年菲律宾巡逻队枪击台湾渔船导致船长死亡,菲律宾说“我很同情,但不会道歉”),中国采取了惩罚措施,因为这个原因,美国跟中国发生海战,中国失去了10000人而美国死了500个,我觉得美国公众对这个战争的斗志会非常低。

首先,他们没办法控制媒体将这个事故完全变成反对中国的舆论导向。美国的反对党也会致力于制造成一种美国500名死者都是因为腐败的菲律宾政府挑衅战争而牺牲的假象。

在死亡人数上以1:20赢了中国可能是个很骄傲的事,但是中国会继续人海战术直到美国总统宣布放弃。

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.

这种想法可以阻止日本主动攻击。“疯子理论”:如果美国和日本觉得中国疯狂到可以为了一次射击而引发战争,那他们行动前会三思。

发表评论
发表评论

网友评论仅供其表达个人看法,并不表明铁血立场。

全部评论
加载更多评论
更多精彩内容