《泰晤士報(bào)》：美國(guó)敦促英國(guó)減少對(duì)美國(guó)武器的依賴(lài)

Topaz_UK
Good. We need to wean ourselves off everything American and rely on more dependable relationships
Hopefully in 5-10 years we will have solid, European alternatives to everything ranging from military equipment, to computer software, food, clothing, and more

很好。我們需要擺脫美國(guó)的一切，轉(zhuǎn)而依賴(lài)更可靠的關(guān)系
希望在5-10年內(nèi)，我們將有堅(jiān)實(shí)的歐洲替代品，從軍事裝備到計(jì)算機(jī)軟件、食品、衣服等等

New-Lingonberry2285
How about British alternatives? Why do they need to be continental?

英國(guó)的替代方案在哪呢？為什么他們需要?dú)W洲大陸？

grumpsaboy
Britain is involved in almost all NATO arms projects to some degree.
However an individual European nation is generally too small to put in the development to make a cutting edge aircraft, if we use Sweden for an example they made the Gripen which is a really good cost effective aircraft but when compared to a typhoon it's physically worse than every way. Individual European Nations also cannot afford to put in large orders which prevents mass production of equipment increasing the cost per unit, one of the reasons the F-35 is currently so cheap is because everyone is buying it and so despite it being a stealth aircraft that is effectively a flying supercomputer it is cheaper at the moment than buying a Typhoon which is non stealth.
Some things you can afford to solo make or are just required to like we build all of our own warships, other things you just have different doctrines to other countries like our tank doctrine but relatively speaking compared to aircraft tanks are pretty cheap

英國(guó)在某種程度上參與了北約幾乎所有的武器項(xiàng)目。
然而，單個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家通常太小，無(wú)法投入開(kāi)發(fā)制造尖端飛機(jī)，如果我們以瑞典為例，他們制造了鷹獅，這是一種非常劃算的飛機(jī)，但與臺(tái)風(fēng)相比，它的物理性能各方面都差。單個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家也無(wú)法承擔(dān)大量訂單，這阻礙了裝備的大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)，增加了單位成本，F(xiàn)-35目前如此便宜的原因之一是因?yàn)槊總€(gè)國(guó)家都在購(gòu)買(mǎi)它，所以盡管它是一架隱形飛機(jī)，實(shí)際上是一個(gè)飛行的超級(jí)計(jì)算機(jī)，但目前比購(gòu)買(mǎi)非隱形的臺(tái)風(fēng)便宜。
有些東西你可以負(fù)擔(dān)得起獨(dú)自制造，或者只是需要我們自己獨(dú)自建造，比如所有的軍艦，其他東西你只是有不同的學(xué)說(shuō)，比如我們的坦克學(xué)說(shuō)，但相對(duì)而言，與飛機(jī)相比，坦克相當(dāng)便宜

B0b3r4urwa
Because military equipment is very expensive and so no countries apart from the US/China have big enough economies that they can afford not to specialise and import what they don't specialise in.

因?yàn)檐娛卵b備非常昂貴，所以除了美國(guó)和中國(guó)，沒(méi)有哪個(gè)國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)體量足夠大，大到能負(fù)擔(dān)得起不專(zhuān)業(yè)化和進(jìn)口他們不專(zhuān)業(yè)的東西。（就是說(shuō)美中可以搞全工業(yè)體系，不用像小國(guó)只能選擇主攻某個(gè)專(zhuān)業(yè)分支，其他的靠進(jìn)口）

OkAdhesiveness2240
Fortunately we are on the trajectory of closer European military integration if we are to maintain peace on the continent of Europe. Russia has lost in Ukraine in so much that it has failed to achieve anywhere near its obxtive, it will not be a threat to the rest of Europe for 5-10 years “if” Europe stands still and does not rearm. If Europe acts, Russia will be no where near to threaten Europe.the main issue for military independence from the US if China make a move on Taiwan. A massive shortage of microchips to Europe would make production of modern weaponry impossible and we would be right at the back of the queue. That is where Europe needs to quickly get independence and dutifully of supply .

幸運(yùn)的是，如果我們要維持歐洲大陸的和平，我們正走在歐洲更緊密軍事一體化的軌道上。俄羅斯在烏克蘭的損失太大了，以至于它無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的目標(biāo)，“如果”歐洲停滯不前，不重新武裝起來(lái)，俄羅斯在今后5-10年內(nèi)也不會(huì)對(duì)歐洲其他國(guó)家構(gòu)成威脅。如果歐洲采取行動(dòng)，俄羅斯將無(wú)法威脅歐洲。擺脫美國(guó)追求軍事獨(dú)立的主要問(wèn)題在于如果中國(guó)對(duì)某島采取行動(dòng)。對(duì)歐洲來(lái)說(shuō)，微芯片的嚴(yán)重短缺將使現(xiàn)代武器的生產(chǎn)變得不可能，我們將被排在隊(duì)伍的最后。這正是歐洲需要迅速獲得獨(dú)立并盡職盡責(zé)地提供的地方。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Gina_eRPSLUT_996
This, we need to get Chips and tech to be made here.

確實(shí)，我們需要在本地生產(chǎn)芯片和技術(shù)。

No-Problem-6453
Reduce dependence should happen as America retreats from Europe. But let's be blunt, it would take everything we have and a timescale of a decade at minimal.
UK is currently ineffective and slow so likely 3 decades at current rates. We would need a massive start up like mindset which is challenging due to mindsets and cultural attitudes. And then there's the money where its a country is decline going bankrupt.

隨著美國(guó)從歐洲撤出，對(duì)美國(guó)的依賴(lài)應(yīng)該會(huì)減少。但坦率地說(shuō)，這將花費(fèi)我們所有的一切，至少需要十年的時(shí)間。
英國(guó)目前效率低下，速度緩慢，按目前的速度可能需要30年。我們需要一種大規(guī)模的創(chuàng)業(yè)心態(tài)，由于心態(tài)和文化態(tài)度，這是具有挑戰(zhàn)性的。然后，當(dāng)一個(gè)國(guó)家衰落到破產(chǎn)的時(shí)候，錢(qián)從何來(lái)。

Zsythgrfl
Defence spending is probably only secondary to welfare (paid to the poorest) when it comes to economic stimulus, mainly because it requires massive infrastructural investment.

當(dāng)涉及到經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激時(shí)，國(guó)防開(kāi)支可能僅次于（支付給最貧窮的人的）福利，主要是因?yàn)樗枰笠?guī)模的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資。

[dexed]
Surely some MOD boffins have raised this already and started to think of plan B.. Could always start Harrier production again.

當(dāng)然，一些國(guó)防部的科學(xué)家已經(jīng)提出了這個(gè)問(wèn)題，并開(kāi)始考慮B計(jì)劃。隨時(shí)可以重新開(kāi)始生產(chǎn)鷂式戰(zhàn)機(jī)。

grumpsaboy
We are a tier 1 member of the F-35 project we build enough stuff that if the US ever pulls supplies from us then we can pull an awful lot of stuff from there aircraft including the seat itself and all of the electronics warfare which is a significant part of keeping the F-35 a stealth aircraft.
Other countries that only made a few small things are more at risk although even then the US wouldn't do it because it would destroy their international arms market but technically they can do it to us but it will also cripple their own aircraft so completely pointless

我們是F-35項(xiàng)目的一級(jí)成員，我們建造了足夠多的東西，如果美國(guó)從我們那里撤走生產(chǎn)線(xiàn)，那么我們也可以從他們的飛機(jī)上拆下很多東西，包括彈射座椅本身和所有電子戰(zhàn)設(shè)備，這是保持F-35隱形飛機(jī)的重要組成部分。
其他只制造一些小東西的國(guó)家面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更大，盡管美國(guó)不會(huì)這么做，因?yàn)檫@會(huì)摧毀他們的國(guó)際武器市場(chǎng)，但從技術(shù)上講，他們可以對(duì)我們這樣做，但這也會(huì)使他們自己的飛機(jī)完全失去意義

homelaberator
As necessary as this might be, this feels very much like previous arms build up that led to war. I'd rather not be involved in a major war, especially if nuclear weapons are a possibility.
It'd be preferable to pull everyone back to sanity.

盡管這可能是必要的，但這感覺(jué)很像以前導(dǎo)致戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的軍備建設(shè)。我寧愿不卷入一場(chǎng)大戰(zhàn)，特別是如果核武器是可能參戰(zhàn)的。
最好能讓所有人都恢復(fù)理智。

grumpsaboy
The problem is if a dictatorship is hellbent on attacking you regardless of whether you have weapons or no weapons at all they will still attack and so the only way of convincing them not to attack is by being so comically powerful that they will lose in a few days so they won't bother attacking in the first place because they know it's completely hopeless.
The last truly major arms race that led to a war as the Dreadnought arms race between Germany and the UK. As it turns out Germany was too scared to use their ships for most of the war only engaging in one major battle and the actual cause of the war was really complicated interlixed alliances that meant that it looked like both sides had a decent shot at winning.
Wars occur if both sides think they can win or one side thinks they can win. If one side knows they will win but doesn't care about starting it and the other wants to start one but knows they will lose there won't be a war.

問(wèn)題在于，如果一個(gè)專(zhuān)制政權(quán)執(zhí)意要攻擊你，不管你是否有武器，他們?nèi)匀粫?huì)攻擊你，所以說(shuō)服他們不要攻擊的唯一方法就是讓自己變得如此強(qiáng)大，以至于他們?cè)趲滋靸?nèi)就會(huì)失敗，所以他們一開(kāi)始就不會(huì)攻擊你，因?yàn)樗麄冎肋@是完全無(wú)望的。
最后一次真正導(dǎo)致戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的重大軍備競(jìng)賽是德國(guó)和英國(guó)之間的無(wú)畏艦軍備競(jìng)賽。事實(shí)證明，德國(guó)太害怕了，不敢在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的大部分時(shí)間里使用他們的船只，只參加了一場(chǎng)主要的戰(zhàn)役，而這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的真正原因是非常復(fù)雜的相互聯(lián)系的聯(lián)盟，這意味著雙方看起來(lái)都有很好的機(jī)會(huì)獲勝。
如果雙方都認(rèn)為自己能贏，或者一方認(rèn)為自己能贏，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)就會(huì)發(fā)生。如果一方知道自己會(huì)贏，但不愿意開(kāi)戰(zhàn)，而另一方想開(kāi)戰(zhàn)，但知道自己會(huì)輸，那么就不會(huì)有戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Helpful_Moose4466
If America wants us to have less reliance on their kit, then they shouldn't have spent literally decades having the MoD over a barrel with contracts and false promises specifically designed to get us to use their equipment at the complete detriment to our own weapons manufacturers. And prior governments shouldn't have been so gullible time and time again when it comes to trusting other world powers regarding defence.

如果美國(guó)想讓我們減少對(duì)他們裝備的依賴(lài)，那么他們就不應(yīng)該花幾十年的時(shí)間用合同和虛假的承諾來(lái)控制國(guó)防部，專(zhuān)門(mén)設(shè)計(jì)讓我們使用他們的裝備，而完全損害我們自己的武器制造商。在國(guó)防方面，以前的政府不應(yīng)該一次又一次地輕信其他世界大國(guó)。

SlowsForSchoolZones
The US is gearing up for a clash of superpowers and have been for the last 15-20 years. China is their primary adversary and they view Russia as Europe's problem, only the EU refuses to get its shit in order and are no longer seen as a credible defensive partner. All to happy to sit behind the shield of the US while undermining them and their own national interests at every turn by cosying up to Russia and China while weakening Europe's position as a whole. (This will be the legacy of the German Green Party)
China is on the edge of viable force projection capacity and will start pressing their claims along their borders and in the South China Sea in a very real way. They will have the capability to do so within this presidency and, with the current geopolitical landscape, might just go for it. This is why the US is pushing so hard for domestic chip manufacturing capacity and why they are doing anything they can to secure access to rare earth minerals.
Trump's rhetoric seems pretty unhinged because he lacks the tact or patience for normal politics and believes he can strong arm everyone into doing what he wants but it would be naive to think its not a reflection of the underlying US position. The lumbering bureaucracy of institutes like NATO and the EU are tolerable during peace times but good for little more than toothless virtue signalling on the world stage.
This leaves the UK in a very weird position of being a major partner in both ends of the conflict. Tied to Europe's defensive needs by geography and capacity to contribute. But also part of AUKUS so tied to the Pacific where the conflict that actually matters will take place.
The reality is that the US are expecting to be in an existential conflict and their commitments to other countries will always come second to their own if this happens.

過(guò)去15-20年來(lái)，美國(guó)一直在為超級(jí)大國(guó)的沖突做準(zhǔn)備。中國(guó)是他們的主要對(duì)手，他們認(rèn)為俄羅斯是歐洲的問(wèn)題，只有歐盟拒絕把它的玩意整理好，然后不再被視為一個(gè)可靠的防御伙伴。所有人都樂(lè)于坐在美國(guó)的盾牌后面，通過(guò)討好俄羅斯和中國(guó)，每時(shí)每刻損害美國(guó)和自己的國(guó)家利益，同時(shí)削弱歐洲作為一個(gè)整體的地位。（這將是德國(guó)綠黨的遺產(chǎn)）
中國(guó)正處于可行的兵力投送能力的邊緣，并將開(kāi)始以一種非常真實(shí)的方式在邊界和南中國(guó)海推進(jìn)他們的主張。在本屆總統(tǒng)任期內(nèi)，他們將有能力這樣做，而且在當(dāng)前的地緣政治形勢(shì)下，他們可能會(huì)這么做。這就是為什么美國(guó)如此努力地推動(dòng)國(guó)內(nèi)芯片制造能力，以及為什么他們正在盡一切努力確保獲得稀土礦。
特朗普的言論看起來(lái)相當(dāng)瘋狂，因?yàn)樗狈φＵ蔚臋C(jī)智和耐心，他認(rèn)為他可以強(qiáng)迫每個(gè)人做他想做的事，但如果認(rèn)為這不是美國(guó)潛在立場(chǎng)的反映，那就太天真了。北約和歐盟等機(jī)構(gòu)笨拙的官僚作風(fēng)在和平時(shí)期是可以容忍的，但除了在世界舞臺(tái)上發(fā)出沒(méi)有實(shí)權(quán)的美德信號(hào)之外，它們沒(méi)什么用處。
這讓英國(guó)處于一個(gè)非常奇怪的位置，在沖突的兩端都是一個(gè)主要的合作伙伴。由于地理位置和貢獻(xiàn)能力，與歐洲的防御需求聯(lián)系在一起。但也有一部分澳哭死部分與（真正重要的沖突將發(fā)生的）太平洋緊密相連。
現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是，美國(guó)希望卷入一場(chǎng)事關(guān)存亡的沖突，如果發(fā)生這種情況，他們對(duì)其他國(guó)家的承諾將永遠(yuǎn)排在自己的之后。

girthy10incher
But also part of AUKUS so tied to the Pacific where the conflict that actually matters will take place.
Wrong and wrong.The pacific doesn't matter to Britain or Europe one bit and we sure as shit won't be sending our navy there to fight china for the mutts.I don't think you septics realise how unimportant and lack of bearing anywhere past the western Indian Ocean is to Europe.Fck the pacific, not our problem.

“但也有一部分澳哭死部分與（真正重要的沖突將發(fā)生的）太平洋緊密相連”
大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)。太平洋對(duì)英國(guó)或歐洲一點(diǎn)都不重要，我們肯定不會(huì)派海軍去那里和中國(guó)打仗。我不認(rèn)為你們這些懷疑論者意識(shí)到西印度洋以外的任何地方對(duì)歐洲來(lái)說(shuō)是多么的不重要和缺乏聯(lián)系。去他媽的太平洋，那不是我們的問(wèn)題。

SlowsForSchoolZones
Unimaginably stupid take.
Our lives revolve entirely around exports from the region. And what happens to the US matters to us. Ceding it to China puts an end to US dominance as a super power, and an end to the near unparalleled peace and prosperity western hegemony has brought us.
You can't possibly believe Europe will step into that role? Its taken us 3 years to start have serious discussions about rearming while there is literal armed conflict happening on European soil. We don't even have the capacity to provide enough arms to Ukraine to hold back a meme-tier super power that can barely project past a tiny strip of its own land border.
Not to mention our cultural and political ties to the region, or the fact that we (all of Europe) don't have the resources or manufacturing base to come even close to replacing what we would lose if there was ever meaningful conflict there.

難以想象的愚蠢。
我們的生活完全圍繞著該地區(qū)的出口。并且美國(guó)遭遇的事情對(duì)我們很重要。把它讓給中國(guó)將結(jié)束美國(guó)作為超級(jí)大國(guó)的統(tǒng)治地位，也將結(jié)束西方霸權(quán)給我們帶來(lái)的近乎無(wú)與倫比的和平與繁榮。
你不可能相信歐洲會(huì)扮演這個(gè)角色？我們花了3年時(shí)間才開(kāi)始認(rèn)真討論重新武裝，而歐洲的土地上卻發(fā)生了真正的武裝沖突。我們甚至沒(méi)有能力向?yàn)蹩颂m提供足夠的武器，以阻止一個(gè)幾乎無(wú)法越過(guò)自己陸地邊界的小地帶的表情包級(jí)超級(jí)大國(guó)。
更不用說(shuō)我們與該地區(qū)的文化和政治聯(lián)系，或者我們（整個(gè)歐洲）沒(méi)有資源或制造業(yè)基地來(lái)彌補(bǔ)我們?cè)谀抢锇l(fā)生重大沖突時(shí)所失去的東西。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

BrexitReally
Just wait - “US signs huge weapons export deal with Russia”

等著吧——“美國(guó)與俄羅斯簽署巨額武器出口協(xié)議”

ShortGuitar7207
Except Russia has no money. Maybe they'll exchange weapons for rare Earth minerals extracted from occupied Ukraine.

除了俄羅斯沒(méi)錢(qián)。也許他們會(huì)用從被占領(lǐng)的烏克蘭開(kāi)采的稀土礦交換武器。

Re-Sleever
At which point in this unholy mess does China pop it’s head up and seize the opportunity to become the global power that backs the rest of the world against Putin and Trump?

在這場(chǎng)邪惡的混亂中，中國(guó)會(huì)在什么時(shí)候抬起頭來(lái)，抓住機(jī)會(huì)成為支持世界其他國(guó)家對(duì)抗普京和特朗普的全球大國(guó)？

umop_apisdn
It is blindingly obvious that Trump is leaving Europe to fend for itself because the US is pivoting to Asia to counter the threat from China.

顯而易見(jiàn)的是，特朗普正在讓歐洲自生自滅，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)正將重心轉(zhuǎn)向亞洲，以應(yīng)對(duì)來(lái)自中國(guó)的威脅。

LucasOFF
Let's go further - reduce dependence on everything American.

讓我們更進(jìn)一步——減少對(duì)一切美國(guó)產(chǎn)品的依賴(lài)。