網友討論：美國開始對伊拉克和敘利亞與伊朗有關的目標進行報復性打擊
US starts retaliatory strikes in Iraq, Syria -officials
譯文簡介
路透華盛頓2月3日 - 美國軍方周五在伊拉克和敘利亞對超過85個與伊朗革命衛(wèi)隊（IRGC）及其支持的民兵組織有關的目標發(fā)動空襲，以報復上周末在約旦發(fā)生的導致三名美國人死亡的襲擊軍隊。
這些襲擊包括使用從美國起飛的遠程 B-1 轟炸機，這是喬·拜登總統(tǒng)政府對伊朗支持的武裝分子襲擊采取的多層次反應中的第一次，美國還采取了更多軍事行動。預計在未來幾天內。
正文翻譯
@SouthDoctor
CENTCOM Statement on U.S. Stikes in Iraq and Syria At 4:00 p.m. (EST) Feb. 02, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups. U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets, with numerous aircraft to include long-range bombers flown from United States. The airstrikes employed more than 125 precision munitions. The facilities that were struck included command and control operations, centers, intelligence centers, rockets, and missiles, and unmanned aired vehicle storages, and logistics and munition supply chain facilities of militia groups and their IRGC sponsors who facilitated attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces. https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1753533250146824348
美國中央司令部（CENTCOM）在美東時間2月2日下午4:00對伊拉克和敘利亞進行了空襲，打擊了伊朗的伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊圣城旅（IRGC）庫茲部隊和相關民兵組織。美國軍隊襲擊了85多個目標，包括從美國起飛的多架飛機，其中包括遠程轟炸機?？找u使用了超過125枚精確制導彈藥。被打擊的設施包括指揮和控制中心、情報中心、火箭和導彈，以及無人機庫存，還包括民兵組織及其伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊贊助者的后勤和彈藥供應鏈設施。這些組織促成了對美國和聯軍部隊的襲擊。
CENTCOM Statement on U.S. Stikes in Iraq and Syria At 4:00 p.m. (EST) Feb. 02, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups. U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets, with numerous aircraft to include long-range bombers flown from United States. The airstrikes employed more than 125 precision munitions. The facilities that were struck included command and control operations, centers, intelligence centers, rockets, and missiles, and unmanned aired vehicle storages, and logistics and munition supply chain facilities of militia groups and their IRGC sponsors who facilitated attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces. https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1753533250146824348
美國中央司令部（CENTCOM）在美東時間2月2日下午4:00對伊拉克和敘利亞進行了空襲，打擊了伊朗的伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊圣城旅（IRGC）庫茲部隊和相關民兵組織。美國軍隊襲擊了85多個目標，包括從美國起飛的多架飛機，其中包括遠程轟炸機?？找u使用了超過125枚精確制導彈藥。被打擊的設施包括指揮和控制中心、情報中心、火箭和導彈，以及無人機庫存，還包括民兵組織及其伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊贊助者的后勤和彈藥供應鏈設施。這些組織促成了對美國和聯軍部隊的襲擊。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 4 )
收藏
@bigcracker
different strikes in Iraq and Syria, seen some of the video and looks like at least munition depots from the way things cooked off.
Edit: Also seen Jordanian aircraft took part as well.
在伊拉克和敘利亞發(fā)生了不同地點的襲擊事件，我觀看了部分視頻片段，從爆炸的情況來看，至少有彈藥庫遭到了打擊。
編輯補充：同時也有消息稱，約旦的飛機也參與了此次行動。
I was complaining cause a train horn woke me up and these guys gotta live with this lol.
我剛才還在抱怨火車汽笛把我吵醒，而這些人卻不得不面對這樣的爆炸事件，真是讓人苦笑不得。
85 confirmed targets hit.
已確認85個目標被擊中。
Hit revolutionary guard positions. Crazy shit
打擊了革命衛(wèi)隊的陣地。真是瘋狂至極。
After the U.S. gave them days to pull out lol.
這還是在美國給他們幾天時間撤離之后發(fā)生的，哈哈。
Three days to do sweet fuck all apparently, considering the footage now coming out showing a lot of secondaries going off at some of the strike sites.
Here is another video of rockets and other ammo flying off wildly at a strike site.
Goes to show that maybe, juuuuuuuust maybe, the US actually knows what they are doing?
顯然三天時間他們啥都沒做，現在流出的視頻顯示，在一些襲擊地點有大量的二次爆炸發(fā)生。這里還有另一個視頻，展示了火箭和其他彈藥在被擊中的地點四處亂飛。這也說明，也許——僅僅是也許——美國真的知道自己在做什么。
Damn, those angles are wild. I'd be shitting my pants if I was that close to those secondaries popping off.
天哪，那些爆炸的角度太瘋狂了。如果我離那些二次爆炸那么近的話，估計褲子都要嚇濕了。
Take cover or something. Anything is better than watching it from a balcony.
趕緊找個地方躲避一下吧，總比站在陽臺上看著強。
Unless you have a very long tunnel I think the window for that is closed
除非你有個非常長的防空洞，否則逃跑的時間窗口可能已經關閉了。
The cow in the background really helps bring it home.
背景中的那頭牛真的讓人有種身臨其境的感覺。
Syria is just a fucking battleground for world and regional powers. It's wild that it's been a black hole for the past years.
敘利亞簡直就是全球和地區(qū)大國的戰(zhàn)場。過去十年來，那里就像一個黑洞一樣。
The whole eastern Mediterranean and Middle East is a crossroads of Africa-Eurasia. I hope we can get our shit together as a species and civilization and stop causing everyone to suffer
整個東地中海和中東地區(qū)是非洲-歐亞大陸的交匯點。我希望我們作為一個物種和文明能夠團結起來，停止制造痛苦，讓所有人都能免受其害。
Three days for them to move their assets to different locations, only to find out the US was watching the entire time to see where they would put them.
他們有三天時間將資產轉移到不同地點，結果發(fā)現美國一直在監(jiān)視，就是為了看他們會把資產藏在哪里。
Between US intel in the lead up to Ruzzia's Ukraine invasion and these strikes today, I am truly struck by the accuracy and effectiveness of US pre-deployment intelligence for target positions and movement.
在俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭之前的美國情報工作，以及今天的這些空襲行動，使我對美國的預部署情報工作的準確性和效力深感震撼。
I actually read somewhere that we were having trouble finding targets. This of course could have been conveniently “l(fā)eaked” however to give them a false sense of security.
我曾在某個地方讀到過，我們當時在尋找目標方面遇到了困難。當然，這可能是為了給對方制造一種虛假的安全感而故意“泄露”的信息。
I read that about Yemen specifically, which is due to how specific the targets are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_missile_strikes_in_Yemen#Timeline
we're only hitting missiles and drone facilities that are in advanced stages of being prepared to fire on ships, retaliatory strikes like today's against any Houthi military target would not be difficult to come by
我了解到的是關于也門的情況，難點在于目標非常具體：
（根據維基百科https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_missile_strikes_in_Yemen#Timeline
我們只打擊那些處于準備發(fā)射階段的針對船只的導彈和無人機設施。像今天這樣的報復性打擊，只要針對任何胡塞武裝的軍事目標，都不難找到并實施。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
I mean we literally have unfathomable@s of fidelity when it comes to our satellite imaging. If they wanted to, they could damn near read the text off your phone whenever you stand outside, in real time. Like when you say they were watching the entire time, you really aren't kidding.
實際上，我們在衛(wèi)星成像技術方面有著難以想象的高分辨率。如果我們愿意的話，幾乎可以在你站在戶外時實時讀取你手機上的文字內容。所以當你說美國一直在監(jiān)視時，你真的不是在開玩笑。
The US military is extremely competent. The people that say yes or no might not be depending on the year
美國軍方的能力極其出色，不過是否做出明智決策則取決于具體的年份。
The US military also has the greatest amount of restraint and precision you can imagine considering the firepower at our disposal.
考慮到我們所掌握的火力，美國軍方在實施打擊時展現出了你能想象到的最大程度的克制與精準度。
That restraint and precision is what makes the firepower such a strong deterrent.
It won't get used often (at large scale, anyway) but when it does, you sit up and take notice.
正是這種克制和精準使得我們的火力成為一種強大的威懾力量。它不會經常被大規(guī)模使用，但一旦使用，所有人都會警覺起來，因為當美國放手一搏時，其策略往往是反擊力度遠超對手。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
As much crap everyone gives the US about varying things, the Military is effective, and there's a reason why, despite many global issues outside of war, nations are hesitant to anger the US and why alliances and defense agreements are so sought after. Drones, Jets, ICBM, Missile Trucks, A Robust Navy. The US is a military powerhouse, and it rarely cuts loose, but when it does, people are at attention cause the US still has the strategy of slapping harder than the person who slapped you first.
盡管大家對美國在許多問題上有各種批評，但不可否認的是，美國軍方確實有效力。這也是為什么，即便在戰(zhàn)爭之外存在眾多全球性問題時，各國仍不愿意激怒美國，并積極尋求與其結盟和簽訂防御協議的原因。無人機、戰(zhàn)機、洲際彈道導彈、導彈發(fā)射車以及強大的海軍實力，使美國成為一個軍事強國。雖然它很少全力以赴，但一旦出手，全世界都會高度關注，因為美國的戰(zhàn)略是在你先動手后以更猛烈的方式還擊。
Striking this many targets at this many layers of operations basically says we know exactly where all of your shit is, you operate because we allow it. The day we stop tolerating your existence, is the day we wipe your entire operation.
同時打擊如此多的目標并觸及多個層級的行動實際上表明，我們知道你們所有設施的確切位置，你們之所以能運作是因為我們允許你們這么做。當我們不再容忍你們的存在時，就是我們將徹底消滅你們整個行動體系的那一天。
I hope our proportional response includes some fab sites, where do they manufacture those shaheed drones? Could do us and the Ukrainians a favor going after those.
我希望我們采取的相應規(guī)模打擊能包括一些關鍵制造設施，比如那些自殺式無人機是哪里生產的？如果能針對這些設施采取行動，不僅對我們自己有利，也能幫到烏克蘭人。
I mean operation praying mantis was a “proportional response” and the US destroyed half of Iran’s navy, so maybe, but Iran did mess with our boats and nobody messes with our boats, as history has shown.
我的意思是，當年的“螳螂行動”也被視為一種“對等回應”，那次美國摧毀了伊朗海軍的一半力量。所以或許這次也是類似的回應，畢竟伊朗曾經挑釁過我們的艦艇，而歷史上無人敢輕易觸碰我們的艦艇。不過，每一次行動的具體規(guī)模和目標選擇，都是基于當時的情況和戰(zhàn)略考量來決定的。
We do, we can fuck shit up like no ones business. There isn't a military power on this planet that can stand toe to toe with us, conventional that is
我們確實可以像無人之業(yè)務那樣搞得一團糟。這個星球上沒有一個軍事強國能夠與我們正面對峙，至少在常規(guī)戰(zhàn)力方面。
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) recalled its senior officers from Syria, and will now rely on regional proxies, five security sources told Reuters.
That was two days ago.
伊朗的伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊（IRGC）從敘利亞召回了高級軍官，現在將依靠地區(qū)代理人。據路透社報道，這發(fā)生在兩天前。
What do you the militias are going to do in days? Do you know how difficult it is to move a bunch of military equipment? Where would they move it to? It isn't like the US isn't watching every square inch of area where these people are operating. Do you think it would be a good idea for this equipment to be brought out into the open where every movement is tracked? If they drag the stuff to other bases, they will tip off the US where other facilities are.
你認為在接下來的幾天，這些民兵會怎么做呢？你知道把一堆軍事裝備搬動起來有多困難嗎？他們會把它們搬到哪里去呢？美國并非不對這些人活動地區(qū)的每一寸土地加以監(jiān)視。你認為把這些裝備暴露在公開場合會是個好主意嗎？如果他們把東西拖到其他基地，就會向美國透露其他設施的所在地。
They'll be able to move some of the lighter stuff - and themselves - but not the heavier stuff.
他們可以搬動一些輕型裝備和他們自己，但無法搬動重型裝備。
Yeah, and they will be tracked. Potentially giving away their dispositions and command and control locations. Having them scurry around like ants isn't a bad thing in of itself.
沒錯，他們的行動將被追蹤，這可能會暴露他們的部署位置和指揮控制系統(tǒng)。讓他們像螞蟻一樣四處亂竄本身并不是壞事。
Makes me think we’ll street seeing a lot more tunnels in conflict regions. Best way to counter the eye in the sky. And drones.
這讓我想到，在沖突地區(qū)我們將會看到更多的地道。這是對抗空中監(jiān)視（衛(wèi)星）和無人機的最佳方式。
Tunnels are really expensive (comparatively speaking) and limiting. I don't doubt they will increase in use but I doubt they will take precedent.
地道的建設和維護成本相對較高，并且存在局限性。我不懷疑地道的使用會增加，但我認為它們不會成為首選策略。
You mean the US gave them days to move all the fancy equipment, which the US would be tracking all the way to a new location for the US to bomb….right?
你的意思是，美國給他們3天時間轉移所有高端裝備，而美國會一路追蹤這些裝備到新的地點，然后繼續(xù)轟炸……對吧？
Bringing the Thunder.
No wonder Iran was trying to back off. They heard the coming storm.
And it's not done yet.
這是雷霆一擊。難怪伊朗試圖退縮，他們已經預感到風暴即將來臨。而且這還遠未結束。
I’m sure B-’s were involved so the Iranians didn’t hear shit until the shockwave hit.
我敢肯定B-轟炸機參與了行動，所以直到沖擊波襲來，伊朗人才會意識到發(fā)生了什么。
That's a significant number. It truly demonstrates the intensity and seriousness of the situation.
這個數量相當可觀，它真實地展現了當前局勢的嚴峻性和緊張程度。
It demonstrates like hey, we know everything about your operation already. Keep fucking around and we can show you what other locations we already know about.
It's a big show of how much intelligence we have.
這次打擊展示了我們對你們行動的全面了解。繼續(xù)胡鬧的話，我們會告訴你們，對于其他已知的地點我們也同樣清楚。這充分體現了我們所掌握的情報量之大。
This is just day . Biden has already said there is a lot more to come and this will be a multi day effort minimum
這只是第一天。拜登已經聲明后續(xù)還有很多動作，并且這至少將是一個持續(xù)數天的努力。
I'm hoping for three so we can show what a real "Three Day Operation" looks like.
我希望這能持續(xù)三天，這樣我們可以展示一下真正的“三天行動”是什么樣子的。
Going to be interesting to see how this impacts his polling numbers / job approval. US appetite for more Middle East wars is low, but also people don't like looking weak. I'm guessing he'll see a modest increase in approval if he manages to pull off what looks like a restrained but strong response.
這次行動對拜登的民調數字和工作支持率的影響將會很有意思。美國民眾對于更多中東戰(zhàn)爭的胃口不大，但也不喜歡顯得軟弱無力。如果他能成功展現一種克制而有力的回應，我猜測他的支持率會適度提升。
I know it’s a running joke but the greatest thing our tax dollars are used on is military and intelligence.
雖然這是一個老生常談的笑話，但我認為我們納稅錢最偉大的用途就是用于軍事和情報部門了。
I think this also showcases the economic benefit of those investments though. There's a decent argument to be made of allies investing more, but how many shipping routes go close enough to unstable, violent area's that would get massively disrupted if there was no definitive power to keep the lanes open.
If those shipping lanes closed, how many people would starve if the breadbaskets of the world couldn't transport their food around efficiently?
The US has a lot of internal issues, and has black spots like the invasion of Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, but the world could easily be a lot worse.
同時這也凸顯了這些投資帶來的經濟效益。關于盟國增加投入有一定道理可講，但有多少運輸航線緊鄰不穩(wěn)定的、暴力頻發(fā)區(qū)域？如果沒有一個明確的力量來確保航道暢通，這些航線將受到嚴重影響。如果這些航運線路關閉，全球糧食主產區(qū)無法有效輸送糧食的話，會有多少人因此挨餓呢？美國確實存在很多內部問題，例如伊拉克入侵事件和關塔那摩灣等問題，但不可否認的是，如果沒有美國，世界形勢可能會糟糕得多。
People also like to simplify these situations and say the US does all this for oil and to keep the "petrodollar" propped up...
At this point in history, the global stability of energy prices is a huge national security issue for every single country on earth...the US just happens to be in the best position to help the stability...
It is beyond naive for someone to say "it's oil bro lol" when energy price stability affects pretty much all@s of the global economy and just about every human living and working on our planet...from billionaires to the poor and everyone in between...
人們也喜歡簡單化地看待這些問題，認為美國這么做只是為了石油和維持“石油美元”的地位……在當前歷史階段，全球能源價格的穩(wěn)定性是地球上每一個國家的重大國家安全問題……美國恰好處于能夠幫助穩(wěn)定這一局勢的最佳位置……當能源價格穩(wěn)定影響到幾乎全球所有經濟體以及生活和工作在地球上的每一個人，從億萬富翁到窮人，再到中間階層時，有人還說“一切都是為了石油，兄弟”這種話，實在是太天真了……
Yep, all the “l(fā)ol oil, Raytheon go brrt” is funny but when covid hit and gas rose to $ a gallon, everyone was losing their shit. Even now with the “OMG my groceries are expensive,” while true, is nothing compared to prices if we couldn’t maintain those shipping routes.
The government does fucked up shit, sometimes for horrible reasons, but I’m willing to bet that the majority of people criticizing said actions are paying no mind to the privileges they enjoy.
沒錯，“全是石油惹的禍，雷神公司大賺特賺”這類說法挺有趣，但當新冠疫情爆發(fā)導致汽油價格上漲至每加侖$X時，所有人都慌了神?，F在大家抱怨“我的食品雜貨好貴啊”，雖然這是事實，但如果不能保持那些運輸航線的暢通，那么現在的物價上漲相比而言就不算什么了。政府有時候會做出錯誤決定，甚至出于惡劣動機，但我敢打賭，大多數批評這些行為的人并沒有意識到他們所享受的各種特權。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Those three lives were worth more than any fucking ammo depot.
那三位犧牲者的生命比任何該死的彈藥庫都更有價值。
Republicans still saying biden didnt do anything
共和黨人還在說拜登什么都沒做。
Nope, they'll call him a warmonger in an election year... But they also had the headlines ready to go to say he's weak and didn't do anything too.
不，他們會在選舉年稱他為好戰(zhàn)分子……但他們同時也準備好了標題，指責他在面對危機時表現軟弱、無所作為。
More than 85 targets hit and 125 precision munitions fired according to CENTCOM.
根據中央司令部（CENTCOM）的消息，超過85個目標被擊中，并發(fā)射了125枚精確制導武器。
Is that a lot? Asking bc a facility may take 10 hits before it’s destroyed so would that be 10 targets or 1?
這是很多嗎？我這樣問是因為一個設施可能需要被打擊10次才能完全摧毀，那么這種情況是算作10個目標還是單算作1個目標呢？
The US usually uses some pretty big and pretty precise munitions so I doubt it woud take 10 hits to destroy a target. And by "pretty precise" I mean "hit a target the size of a vehicle from a plane 50k feet in the air or from some launch site 200 miles away.
美國通常使用一些相當大且相當精確的彈藥，因此我懷疑摧毀一個目標不需要10次打擊。當我提到“相當精確”時，我的意思是能夠從5萬英尺高空的飛機上或從200英里外的發(fā)射地點準確命中一輛車大小的目標。
from some launch site 200 miles away.
Tomahawks have a 1k~ mile range and accuracy of about 5~ meters. So pump that number up.
戰(zhàn)斧導彈的射程在1000至2000英里之間，且精度能達到5米左右。因此，從距離目標200英里的發(fā)射地點發(fā)射時，這個數字可能需要向上調整以體現其打擊能力。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
So you’re saying they could feasibly kill me while I sleep in Boston from Miami
你的意思是說，他們理論上可以從邁阿密殺死在波士頓熟睡中的我？
Potentially, yes. I doubt the US tries to fire from the longest range possible, though. And the public numbers for US systems are nearly always less than the actual numbers the system is capable of.
理論上確實可能，但我懷疑美國不會試圖從最遠射程進行打擊。此外，公開發(fā)布的關于美國武器系統(tǒng)的數據通常低于其實際能力。
The US' military operates on a policy of "speak softly and carry a big stick". They don't need to appear powerful, they are.
美國軍隊奉行的是“溫和言辭、手握大棒”的政策。他們不需要顯得強大，因為他們本身就很強。
Even for people that may have mixed feelings on some of the international policies of the US, watching its military at work after spending tons of time listening to china, Russia, iran etc etc boast about theirs, is akin to watching aliens descend down to show everyone how stuff is really done.
It's a logistical behemoth that can deliver several simultaneous strikes on target from literally across the world. It's downright flabbergasting how easily the US military could take on the rest of the world put together and not even struggle that much.
即使是對美國某些國際政策持復雜情感的人，在長時間聽聞中國、俄羅斯、伊朗等國夸耀其軍事實力之后，看到美國軍隊實際運作的樣子，就如同觀看外星人降臨地球向大家展示真正做事的方式一樣。美國軍事力量如同一頭后勤巨獸，能夠從世界各地同時對目標發(fā)起打擊，其輕松應對世界各國聯合挑戰(zhàn)的能力簡直令人瞠目結舌。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Even for people that may have mixed feelings on some of the international policies of the US, watching its military at work after spending tons of time listening to china, Russia, iran etc etc boast about theirs, is akin to watching aliens descend down to show everyone how stuff is really done.
And we haven't even taken off our earrings yet.
即便有些人對美國的部分國際政策持有不同看法，在聽過中國、俄羅斯、伊朗等國家不斷自夸后，目睹美國軍隊的實際行動就像是看外星人下凡演示如何正確行事。而且請注意，我們還遠未全力以赴
Given the quality of US munitions, assume shot= target destroyed. We're able to put a lb bomb that's dropped from a plane k feet in the air within feet of where we wanted it.
考慮到美國武器的質量，假設一發(fā)即一個目標被摧毀。我們能夠將一枚從5萬英尺高空飛機上投下的磅重炸彈精準投放到距離預定目標3米之內
The US has 'knife bombs' where they don't explode just deploy some swords and slice a dude in half.
美國有那種“刀刃炸彈”，它們不會爆炸，而是釋放出一些劍片，能把人一刀兩斷。
It's just a hellfire missile (fire from a helicopter) with or blades that pop out of it. So not half, eighthththths
那其實是一種地獄火導彈（從直升機發(fā)射），帶有12或更多片展開的刀片，所以不是切成兩半，而是切成了更小的碎塊。
That's the JDAM for you and why the US has been supplying the conversion kits to Israel. Otherwise, you're looking at a much bigger error even at lower altitudes with a computer-controlled bomb release system. Like a % chance of getting within feet.
For point of comparison, a Second World War B- was % within , feet.
這就是JDAM（聯合直接攻擊彈藥）的作用，也是為什么美國一直在向以色列提供這種轉換套件的原因。否則，即使使用計算機控制的炸彈投放系統(tǒng)，在較低高度投擲時也會有較大的誤差，可能只有大約30%的機會能將炸彈投擲在10米范圍內。作為對比，二戰(zhàn)時期的B-17轟炸機在投擲炸彈時，其命中精度是50%落在250英尺內。
Wasn’t a portion of this because their formations took massive flak fire and the norden basically required autopilot during dropping of these bombs which was not often possible?
I think they also dropped bombs at significantly higher altitudes than what they tested the norden for. But, yeah, either way we bomb shit real good now.
我記得其中一部分原因是由于他們的編隊遭受了猛烈的防空炮火，而諾登轟炸瞄準器實際上需要自動駕駛模式才能準確投彈，但這在實戰(zhàn)中并不總是可行的。而且，他們投擲炸彈的高度通常遠高于諾登瞄準器測試時所設定的高度。不過不管怎樣，現在我們確實能把炸彈炸得相當精準了。
A considerable amount of this stuff lies between “unknown because it’s impossible to know” and “unknown because it’s deeply classified (for good reasons or not)” but my most recent understanding is that the Norden Bomb Sight simply never actually worked, AND flak, flying at high altitude, variables that couldn’t be considered at the time, etc all played a role in those outcomes.
When you consider what’s necessary in order to have a massive bomb land at a specific spot after being released at high speed from a platform moving in three variable dimensions tens of thousands of feet above, it’s a pretty tall order even today. That’s one reason why some aspects remain classified - because this ability to hit precisely is a quantum leap in capability, so countries that can do it don’t want anyone else to be able to do it. I remember watching the recordings of precision strikes from the first Gulf War, and how everyone was talking about it afterwards. There were jokes about missiles coming through windows in a bunch of things for a couple of years later, because it’s a ludicrous thing to do… the only thing that’s crazier is how much we take that capability for granted now. Especially considering how the current standard is all the way up to “kill one guy in a car, leave the other people alive.”
The other aspect is that the Norden was trying to solve an equation that was just impossible to solve with the kind of technology that was available at that time. Like, you can’t find the area under a curve using geometry, it simply isn’t possible. You need a new kind of math to have any hope of doing it. You can get kind of close using estimates & hedging methods, but it’s still just an estimate. The fire control computers built for the Iowa-class battleships were much more capable of doing these estimates, so they were able to be significantly more accurate & reliable (even though the firing platform is on a ship) mostly because they were simply bigger and more complex, which was what drove performance in analog computers. Obviously, every pound of bomb-sighting computer on a plane is a pound not being used for something else, so you can’t just have a battleship-class computer for your bombsight. The “promise” of the Norden was that if you used the autopilot to “l(fā)ock down” a few of the variables, you could save almost literally a ton of computer weight.
The problem was that it never actually delivered on that, and the USAAF / War Department basically ignored this small problem of a more or less non-functional bombsight right through the end of the war, always kind of pretending that it was working.
There’s a case to be made that the Norden program was a procurement disaster, and there’s even a credible case to be made that somebody should’ve had charges brought against them for all of the money & other critical resources it consumed without ever actually delivering the results which were promised. I don’t think there’s ever been a conclusive, official answer as to why the failure of both the Norden as a system (and procurement program) and precision bombing as a tactic / strategy didn’t cause a wider scandal or anything like that. Maybe during the war, it’s because you want good vibes & morale as opposed to coming out and saying “oh, damn, this entire thing has been a complete disaster, whoopsie” and after the war it’s just “well, that’s behind us, whew” but who really knows?
相當一部分關于這一領域的信息處于“未知（因為無法得知）”和“未知（因涉及深度機密，無論出于何種原因）”之間。根據我最近的理解，諾登轟炸瞄準器實際上從未真正起作用，并且防空炮火、高空飛行、當時未能考慮的諸多變量等因素都對結果產生了影響。
要讓一顆從數萬英尺高處、高速投放的大型炸彈精確地落在指定位置，即使在今天也是一項極其艱巨的任務。這也是為什么有些方面仍被列為機密的原因之一——這種精準打擊能力是技術上的巨大飛躍，能夠做到這一點的國家自然不希望其他國家也能擁有這項技術。我記得觀看過第一次海灣戰(zhàn)爭中的精準打擊錄像，戰(zhàn)后所有人都在討論此事。在那之后的幾年里，甚至出現了關于導彈能穿過建筑物窗戶的笑話，因為這是一件看似荒謬的事情……更令人驚訝的是，我們現在竟然已經將這種能力視為理所當然。尤其是考慮到當前的標準已經可以實現“殺死車內的一個目標，而其他人員安然無恙”。
另一方面，諾登瞄準器試圖解決的問題是一個在其時代技術水平下幾乎無法解決的方程式。例如，你不能僅通過幾何學方法來求解曲線下的面積，這是不可能的。要想解決這個問題，你需要一種全新的數學方法。雖然可以通過估算和保險策略接近目標，但始終只是估計值。為愛荷華級戰(zhàn)列艦建造的火控計算機在進行此類估算上更具能力，因此它們在準確性與可靠性上遠超諾登瞄準器，主要原因是這些戰(zhàn)列艦火控計算機體積更大、結構更復雜，在模擬計算機時代，正是這些因素決定了其性能表現。顯然，飛機上的每一磅轟炸瞄準計算機重量就意味著少了一磅用于其他用途的載荷，因此你不可能直接在轟炸瞄準裝置上安裝一個戰(zhàn)列艦級別的計算機。諾登瞄準器當初的承諾是，如果利用自動駕駛鎖定一些變量，理論上可以節(jié)省大量計算機設備的重量。
問題在于，諾登瞄準器并未真正兌現這一承諾，美國陸軍航空隊（USAAF）和戰(zhàn)爭部基本上在整個戰(zhàn)爭期間忽略了這款近乎無功能的轟炸瞄準器存在的小問題，總是假裝它仍在正常工作。
有人認為諾登計劃是一場采購災難，甚至有合理的案例表明，由于該計劃耗費了大量資金和其他關鍵資源，卻從未真正交付承諾的結果，應當有人為此負責。我認為至今尚未有一個正式、明確的答案來解釋為何諾登系統(tǒng)（及其采購項目）以及精確轟炸作為戰(zhàn)術/戰(zhàn)略的失敗沒有引發(fā)更大的丑聞或類似事件。也許在戰(zhàn)爭期間，保持高昂士氣和積極氛圍比公開承認“哦，天哪，整個事情完全是個災難，哎呀”更重要；而在戰(zhàn)后，人們可能就抱著“好吧，那些都已經過去了，松一口氣”的心態(tài)，但究竟真相如何，又有誰能真正知道呢？
Asking bc a facility may take hits before it’s destroyed so would that be targets or ?
Not really knowing for sure, I'd assume that would count as target. Otherwise, given these numbers (/), "precision munitions" didn't actually hit anything.
So, distinct targets, some of them hit multiple times.
詢問一下，如果一個設施需要被打擊10次才能摧毀，那么這算是10個目標還是1個目標？在沒有確切信息的情況下，我猜測這種情況應算作1個目標。否則的話，按照這些數字（/），那些“精確制導彈藥”實際上并未擊中任何東西。所以是針對多個不同的目標進行打擊，其中一些目標可能被多次命中。
Surprisingly, Twitter got this one right. Saw reports hours ago about a flight of B- Bombers taking off from their base in the UK. Guess we know where they ended up.
令人驚訝的是，推特上這次的信息是對的。幾個小時前就看到有關B-轟炸機從英國基地起飛的報道?？磥憩F在我們知道它們的目的地了。
They waited until the market closed for the weekend literally down to the minute lol.
他們特意等到周末股市收盤的最后一分鐘才行動，真是笑死人了。
there's absolutely no reaction from the markets, it was priced in. Biden's odds did go up on multiple sites on the move though.
市場對此完全沒有反應，因為這一消息已經被市場提前消化了。不過，在此次行動之后，拜登在多個網站上的勝選賠率倒是上升了。
They started taking air defense out about fifteen minutes before. News didnt report anything till after close lol.
大約在行動前十五分鐘就開始清除了防空設施。新聞發(fā)布是在股市收盤后才出來的，哈哈。
No, they launched the attack directly after Biden greeted the bodies of the soldiers in DC. That’s how they timed it.
Nothing to do with the stock market. Read around, there are statements from the White House and DOD. I think that’s a coincidence you noticed and assumed to be causative.
不，他們是直接在拜登在華盛頓迎接陣亡士兵遺體之后發(fā)動襲擊的。這就是他們選擇的時間點。與股票市場無關。請多查閱相關信息，白宮和國防部都發(fā)表了聲明。你注意到的時間巧合可能只是偶然，并非因果關系。
At least 18 Iran backed militia in Syria killed from the attacks so far
目前已有至少18名受伊朗支持的敘利亞民兵在襲擊中喪生。
It’s amazing how few people understand that by “giving the Iranians 3 days to evacuate” the military was in a perfect place to bomb known facilities and follow/track equipment moving to previously unknown facilities, which would get bombed. If you don’t hunk the military has eyes on whatever they want, I got news for ya
令人驚訝的是，很少有人明白“給伊朗3天時間撤離”的背后含義。此舉實際上使軍隊處于絕佳位置去轟炸已知設施，并追蹤那些轉移到未知設施（之后同樣會遭到轟炸）的裝備。如果你還認為軍隊無法對想要關注的目標進行監(jiān)視，那么我得告訴你一些你可能不知道的事情。
Its also a way to intimidate Iran.
It's the US saying to Iran: "We know where you are. We can hit you at anytime and you can't do shit to stop it."
這也是一種對伊朗進行震懾的方式。美國是在向伊朗傳達這樣的信息：“我們知道你的位置。我們可以在任何時候打擊你，而你對此無能為力?！?/b>
Yeah, it wasn't really a threat when Biden said,
"We will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing"
It's just a statement of facts, and a promise. Looks like he's delivering and we're not even sure this is all of it.
Edit: Didn't see the White House , posted the end below.
Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing. The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. But let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: If you harm an American, we will respond.
當拜登說，“我們將按照我們選擇的時間和方式追究所有責任方的責任”時，這并不是真正的威脅。這只是陳述了一個事實，并作出了一項承諾?？雌饋硭趦冬F諾言，而且我們還不確定這就是全部行動。編輯補充：沒看到白宮聲明，以下是白宮最后發(fā)布的部分內容：“我們的回應從今天開始，將在我們選擇的時間和地點繼續(xù)進行。美國不尋求在中東或其他任何地方挑起沖突。但要讓那些可能對我們構成危害的人知道這一點：如果你傷害了美國人，我們將予以回應?！?/b>
It will continue at times and places of our choosing.
That sentence just shows complete domination. Like 'we will do whatever we want and there is no way you could possibly stop us'.
這句話顯示了完全的主導地位，就如同在聲明：“我們將隨時在我們選定的時間和地點采取行動，你們無法阻止我們這樣做。”這傳達出一種近乎絕對的實力和決心，以及對對手無從防御或反擊能力的暗示。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
It's funny because you don't hear a peep from the pro Iranian people who in other threads were saying Biden won't do anything and their anti air defense would defeat any bombers.
What dummies they are
有趣的是，在其他帖子里那些支持伊朗的人曾說拜登不會有所作為，他們的防空系統(tǒng)能擊敗任何轟炸機，現在卻悄無聲息。真是些愚蠢之極的人。
People are defending Iran now? Jesus.
現在竟然有人在為伊朗辯護？天哪。
Dark motherfuckin Brandon ladies and gentlemen
女士們先生們，這就是那位讓局勢變得嚴峻的Brandon總統(tǒng)
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
And some people think Texas can and could secede lol
有些人還認為德克薩斯州可以并且能夠脫離美國獨立，哈哈。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Texas can't even turn a heater on
德克薩斯州連暖氣都開不好，還想搞獨立。
People that I know who support Republican policies are squawking about how Biden is starting WW.
I asked them, "How is retaliation for killing US soldiers 'starting' anything?"
As expected, they shifted topics and whataboutisms.
我認識的一些支持共和黨政策的人正在嚷嚷拜登是如何開啟世界大戰(zhàn)的。我問他們，“對殺害美軍士兵進行報復怎么就成了‘挑起’戰(zhàn)爭了呢？”不出所料，他們轉移話題并開始講起了“何不食肉糜”的邏輯。
“Because Biden makes us look weak so they think it’s okay to kill Americans”
Is what I see. Guess they are finding out how weak we are huh
“因為拜登讓我們看起來軟弱，所以他們覺得殺美國人無所謂。”看來他們現在才發(fā)現我們的“軟弱”了吧。
That is a proper statement of force. I do not see weakness in this statement.
我認為這是一份恰當的武力聲明。在這份聲明中我沒有看到任何示弱之處。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
The vague nature of the response is far more menacing. Maybe that was the last bomb, maybe not, maybe stop trying to kill us. (Also we should not kill them, ffs war should be a fully antiquated thing at this point in history)
回應中的模糊性實際上更具威懾力?？赡苁亲詈笠活w炸彈，也可能不是，也許應該停止試圖傷害我們。（另外，我們也不應該去殺他們，天哪，在歷史的這個階段，戰(zhàn)爭本應完全過時了）
(Also we should not kill them, ffs war should be a fully antiquated thing at this point in history)
I agree that not having wars would be better, but some people seem to not want to get the message until you kill them, and until you do, they'll try to harm you in every way they can. And for those, we need to accept that not killing them isn't a good option.
（另外，我們確實不應該去殺他們，天哪，在歷史的這個階段，戰(zhàn)爭本該徹底成為過去式）我同意沒有戰(zhàn)爭會更好，但有些人似乎只有在你殺死他們之后才會吸取教訓，在此之前他們會竭盡全力來傷害你。對于這些人，我們必須認識到不殺掉他們并不是一個好的選擇。
The US also regularly does this before military action which is technically what you're supposed to do under international law. Basically they issue a final ultimatum which they know the other side won't comply with and then - days later the bombing begins. This way they can say "we gave you a chance to turn in the people behind the attacks on US forces and you refused"
美國在采取軍事行動前也經常這樣做，這從技術上講是符合國際法規(guī)定的?；旧希麄儠l(fā)出一個明知對方不會遵守的最后通牒，幾天后轟炸就開始了。這樣他們可以說，“我們曾給你們機會交出襲擊美軍部隊背后的人，但你們拒絕了。”
Air superiority is overall superiority, and the US owns the sky.
空中優(yōu)勢就是全方位的優(yōu)勢，而美國主宰著天空。
The ants take the bait back to the nest and fuck the whole colony. Genius.
就像螞蟻帶著誘餌回到巢穴，結果摧毀了整個蟻群。真是天才般的策略。
Yeah, issue the warning and then watch everything with KEYHOLE satellites and drones. Stuff that doesn't move target it. Stuff that does move but stays in-country; now you have NEW targets. Stuff that moves back into IRAN, alright, that is where the US wants it to stay anyway.
沒錯，發(fā)出警告后，通過KEYHOLE衛(wèi)星和無人機監(jiān)視一切。不動的目標就鎖定它。移動但仍在本國境內的目標，現在就有了新的打擊對象。那些移動回伊朗的，好吧，反正美國希望它們留在那里。
Yup we sent up the warning then watched them. Hell we may have even discovered new targets by watching and hit those too.
對，我們發(fā)出了警告然后一直監(jiān)視他們。甚至可能通過觀察發(fā)現了新的目標，并對其進行了打擊。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Everyone complains that we telegraphed our moves to the world. I kind of agreed at first but then I gave it a little more thought and realized that it’s just a strategic move.
The us is just watching where these fuckers run off to Just like how people mark and follow pests back to nests they don’t know of before.
Think about it. They announce the attack. Terrorist scramble and go to their “secret” safe places and the us learns of/confirms locations.
We bomb them just enough to see where their super secret places are
And the pattern repeats. GENIUS.
大家都抱怨我們把行動計劃告訴了全世界。起初我也這么認為，但后來仔細一想，這其實是一個戰(zhàn)略行動。美國就像是在觀察這些混蛋逃往何處，就像人們追蹤害蟲回到之前未知的巢穴一樣。設想一下，美國宣布將進行反擊，恐怖分子驚慌失措地逃向他們所謂的“秘密安全地點”，而美國借此機會得知并確認了這些地點。我們對這些地方進行適度轟炸，以便找出他們超級秘密藏身之處，然后這個模式就會不斷重復。真是天才之舉。
That's what I was thinking too. We prob moved intel into place a day or some BEFORE we said we'd retaliate. Then watched where they bugged out to.
我也是這樣想的。我們可能在宣布報復行動前的一天或更早時候就已經布置好了情報人員。之后就監(jiān)視敵人逃跑的方向。
I don't think people realize just how sophisticated the US's total battlefield awareness and intelligence gathering capabilities are in ...it was wild to see the what could be done in the 's and early 's...
Once you become a high priority focus of the US military because of your bad choices and the full weight of their SIGINT and surveillance capabilities bear down on you it's gonna be a bad time...
I'm guessing these days there is also a lot of machine learning / AI helping to sift through the massive amounts of communication and surveillance data to help do things like identify potential targets and flag comm data for further review...
我認為人們并沒有充分意識到美國在戰(zhàn)場整體意識和情報收集方面有多么先進……上世紀90年代及本世紀初所展現的技術已經令人驚嘆不已。一旦你因為錯誤的選擇成為美軍的重點關注對象，并且其信號情報（SIGINT）和監(jiān)控能力全力對付你時，那對你來說絕對是一段糟糕的時光……我想如今大量機器學習和人工智能技術也在協助分析海量通訊和監(jiān)控數據，幫助識別潛在目標并將通信數據標記出來供進一步審查……
This is precisely my thinking.
Bad guys forget we were at war for + years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — and ran intel (sig and hum) ops across every continent and with every decent signal source.
The total awareness, intel gathering, and magnified lethality of what we have in our arsenal has only benefited from our decades of investment, learning, trial and error, and mission obxtive success.
我的想法完全相同。壞家伙們忘記了我們在伊拉克、阿富汗和其他地區(qū)打了超過20年的戰(zhàn)爭，在每個大陸以及每一個有價值的信號源上都運行著信號情報（SIG）和人力情報（HUM）行動。我們武器庫中全面的情報感知能力、情報收集能力和強化的殺傷力，都是得益于過去幾十年我們在投資、學習、試錯和完成任務目標方面的積累與進步。
Just mins boggling how far ahead US is militarily vs rest of the world even nato allies
Some may match their fire power in certain areas but the shear logistic / intel / coordinations US can do in short time is fanscinatinc
美國在軍事上與其他國家（甚至是北約盟國）相比領先得令人難以置信。有些國家可能在某些領域火力相當，但美國能在短時間內完成的后勤、情報和協調能力真是令人驚嘆。
I think a lot of people underappreciate the US's ability to conduct war. I don't want to make guesses as to how far ahead we are, but the number and sophistication of the bombs countries use isn't really a factor.
我認為許多人低估了美國進行戰(zhàn)爭的能力。我不想猜測我們在多大程度上領先，但各國使用炸彈的數量和復雜性其實并不是關鍵因素。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
It’s specifically the American capacity to set up and deploy an entire logistics chain with essentially no notice. Russia hasn’t been able to take over a neighboring nation which is /th the land area primarily because their wartime logistics are terrible. Tanks running out of fuel in enemy territory, munitions scarcity, food shortages, etc.
It’s impossible for anyone to accurately say how well other nations stack up to the United States in terms of technology, but nobody does logistics better.
具體來說，美國的獨特之處在于能夠在幾乎無預警的情況下建立起并部署一整條后勤鏈。俄羅斯之所以無法成功占領一個面積僅為其幾分之一的鄰國，主要原因就在于其戰(zhàn)時后勤極其糟糕——坦克在敵方領土耗盡燃料，彈藥短缺，食品供應不足等等。雖然很難準確評估其他國家在技術方面與美國相比表現如何，但在后勤方面，無人能出美國之右。