《泰晤士報》：美國敦促英國減少對美國武器的依賴
The Times: US Urges UK To Reduce Its Dependence On American Weapons
譯文簡介
“讓我們更進一步——減少對一切美國產(chǎn)品的依賴?！薄短┪钍繄蟆穲蟮?。
正文翻譯
The Times: US Urges UK To Reduce Its Dependence On American Weapons
《泰晤士報》：美國敦促英國減少對美國武器的依賴
《泰晤士報》：美國敦促英國減少對美國武器的依賴
(A Royal Air Force F-35B fighter jet. November 2022. Britain.)
（英國皇家空軍的F-35B戰(zhàn)斗機。攝于2022年11月，英國。）
新聞：
The representatives of the United States government have warned the British military about the importance of reducing dependence on American weapons under the new administration.
美國政府的代表已經(jīng)警告英國軍方，在新政府的領(lǐng)導下，減少對美國武器的依賴非常重要。
美國政府的代表已經(jīng)警告英國軍方，在新政府的領(lǐng)導下，減少對美國武器的依賴非常重要。
The Times reported on this.
《泰晤士報》對此進行了報道。
《泰晤士報》對此進行了報道。
According to the publication, a senior British military officer who is not part of the government received a private warning from American officials that London should “recalibrate” its defense policy.
據(jù)該報稱，一名非政府官員的英國高級軍官私下收到了美國官員的警告，稱倫敦應該“重新調(diào)整”其國防政策。
據(jù)該報稱，一名非政府官員的英國高級軍官私下收到了美國官員的警告，稱倫敦應該“重新調(diào)整”其國防政策。
This happened after the Trump administration allegedly made statements that the UK was receiving military equipment too cheaply.
此前，特朗普政府發(fā)表聲明稱，英國接收軍事裝備的價格過低。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
此前，特朗普政府發(fā)表聲明稱，英國接收軍事裝備的價格過低。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
In particular, it is believed that London had signed an unfairly cheap deal for the purchase of Trident intercontinental ballistic missiles.
特別是，據(jù)信倫敦簽署了購買三叉戟洲際彈道導彈的不公平廉價協(xié)議。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
特別是，據(jù)信倫敦簽署了購買三叉戟洲際彈道導彈的不公平廉價協(xié)議。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
“We’ve been trying to tell people to readjust. The old confidence is gone,” The Times writes, citing American officials.
“我們一直試圖告訴人們要重新適應。昔日的信心已經(jīng)蕩然無存，” 《泰晤士報》援引美國官員的話寫道。
“我們一直試圖告訴人們要重新適應。昔日的信心已經(jīng)蕩然無存，” 《泰晤士報》援引美國官員的話寫道。
It is reported that the US administration might impose restrictions on the supply of equipment from the US because “missiles and planes won’t fly if you don’t do what you’re told.”
據(jù)報道，美國政府可能會對美國的裝備供應實施限制，因為“如果你不按我說的做，導彈和飛機就飛不起來”。
據(jù)報道，美國政府可能會對美國的裝備供應實施限制，因為“如果你不按我說的做，導彈和飛機就飛不起來”。
It is worth noting that the UK remains a top-level ally for the US, and their defense systems are closely integrated.
值得注意的是，英國仍然是美國的頂級盟友，兩國防務體系緊密結(jié)合。
值得注意的是，英國仍然是美國的頂級盟友，兩國防務體系緊密結(jié)合。
However, a deterioration in relations could threaten the implementation of strategic programs, including the procurement of F-35 fighters.
然而，兩國關(guān)系的惡化可能會威脅到戰(zhàn)略項目的實施，包括采購F-35戰(zhàn)斗機。
然而，兩國關(guān)系的惡化可能會威脅到戰(zhàn)略項目的實施，包括采購F-35戰(zhàn)斗機。
The UK increases defense spending
英國增加國防開支
英國增加國防開支
On February 25th, it was reported that Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the largest increase in UK defense spending since the Cold War.
2月25日，據(jù)報道，英國首相基爾·斯塔默宣布了自冷戰(zhàn)以來英國國防開支的最大增幅。
2月25日，據(jù)報道，英國首相基爾·斯塔默宣布了自冷戰(zhàn)以來英國國防開支的最大增幅。
It is planned that the British government would increase the defense budget to 2.5% of GDP starting in April 2027, and then to 3%.
英國政府計劃從2027年4月開始將國防預算增加到GDP的2.5%，然后再增加到3%。
英國政府計劃從2027年4月開始將國防預算增加到GDP的2.5%，然后再增加到3%。
This step is part of a strategy aimed at strengthening national security, stimulating economic growth, and protecting British interests in the face of growing global instability.
這一步驟是一項戰(zhàn)略的一部分，旨在加強國家安全，刺激經(jīng)濟增長，并在全球日益不穩(wěn)定的情況下保護英國的利益。
這一步驟是一項戰(zhàn)略的一部分，旨在加強國家安全，刺激經(jīng)濟增長，并在全球日益不穩(wěn)定的情況下保護英國的利益。
The British government plans to allocate funds for the development of artificial intelligence, quantum computing and space technologies.
英國政府計劃為人工智能、量子計算和空間技術(shù)的發(fā)展撥款。
英國政府計劃為人工智能、量子計算和空間技術(shù)的發(fā)展撥款。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
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。我們需要擺脫美國的一切，轉(zhuǎn)而依賴更可靠的關(guān)系
希望在5-10年內(nèi)，我們將有堅實的歐洲替代品，從軍事裝備到計算機軟件、食品、衣服等等
How about British alternatives? Why do they need to be continental?
英國的替代方案在哪呢？為什么他們需要歐洲大陸？
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
英國在某種程度上參與了北約幾乎所有的武器項目。
然而，單個歐洲國家通常太小，無法投入開發(fā)制造尖端飛機，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，但與臺風相比，它的物理性能各方面都差。單個歐洲國家也無法承擔大量訂單，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為每個國家都在購買它，所以盡管它是一架隱形飛機，實際上是一個飛行的超級計算機，但目前比購買非隱形的臺風便宜。
有些東西你可以負擔得起獨自制造，或者只是需要我們自己獨自建造，比如所有的軍艦，其他東西你只是有不同的學說，比如我們的坦克學說，但相對而言，與飛機相比，坦克相當便宜
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.
因為軍事裝備非常昂貴，所以除了美國和中國，沒有哪個國家的經(jīng)濟體量足夠大，大到能負擔得起不專業(yè)化和進口他們不專業(yè)的東西。（就是說美中可以搞全工業(yè)體系，不用像小國只能選擇主攻某個專業(yè)分支，其他的靠進口）
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，以至于它無法實現(xiàn)自己的目標，“如果”歐洲停滯不前，不重新武裝起來，俄羅斯在今后5-10年內(nèi)也不會對歐洲其他國家構(gòu)成威脅。如果歐洲采取行動，俄羅斯將無法威脅歐洲。擺脫美國追求軍事獨立的主要問題在于如果中國對某島采取行動。對歐洲來說，微芯片的嚴重短缺將使現(xiàn)代武器的生產(chǎn)變得不可能，我們將被排在隊伍的最后。這正是歐洲需要迅速獲得獨立并盡職盡責地提供的地方。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
This, we need to get Chips and tech to be made here.
確實，我們需要在本地生產(chǎn)芯片和技術(shù)。
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.
隨著美國從歐洲撤出，對美國的依賴應該會減少。但坦率地說，這將花費我們所有的一切，至少需要十年的時間。
英國目前效率低下，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，當一個國家衰落到破產(chǎn)的時候，錢從何來。
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.
當涉及到經(jīng)濟刺激時，國防開支可能僅次于（支付給最貧窮的人的）福利，主要是因為它需要大規(guī)模的基礎設施投資。
Surely some MOD boffins have raised this already and started to think of plan B.. Could always start Harrier production again.
當然，一些國防部的科學家已經(jīng)提出了這個問題，并開始考慮B計劃。隨時可以重新開始生產(chǎn)鷂式戰(zhàn)機。
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項目的一級成員，我們建造了足夠多的東西，如果美國從我們那里撤走生產(chǎn)線，那么我們也可以從他們的飛機上拆下很多東西，包括彈射座椅本身和所有電子戰(zhàn)設備，這是保持F-35隱形飛機的重要組成部分。
其他只制造一些小東西的國家面臨的風險更大，盡管美國不會這么做，因為這會摧毀他們的國際武器市場，但從技術(shù)上講，他們可以對我們這樣做，但這也會使他們自己的飛機完全失去意義
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，但這感覺很像以前導致戰(zhàn)爭的軍備建設。我寧愿不卷入一場大戰(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理智。
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.
問題在于，如果一個專制政權(quán)執(zhí)意要攻擊你，不管你是否有武器，他們?nèi)匀粫裟?，所以說服他們不要攻擊的唯一方法就是讓自己變得如此強大，以至于他們在幾天內(nèi)就會失敗，所以他們一開始就不會攻擊你，因為他們知道這是完全無望的。
最后一次真正導致戰(zhàn)爭的重大軍備競賽是德國和英國之間的無畏艦軍備競賽。事實證明，德國太害怕了，不敢在戰(zhàn)爭的大部分時間里使用他們的船只，只參加了一場主要的戰(zhàn)役，而這場戰(zhàn)爭的真正原因是非常復雜的相互聯(lián)系的聯(lián)盟，這意味著雙方看起來都有很好的機會獲勝。
如果雙方都認為自己能贏，或者一方認為自己能贏，戰(zhàn)爭就會發(fā)生。如果一方知道自己會贏，但不愿意開戰(zhàn)，而另一方想開戰(zhàn)，但知道自己會輸，那么就不會有戰(zhàn)爭。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
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.
如果美國想讓我們減少對他們裝備的依賴，那么他們就不應該花幾十年的時間用合同和虛假的承諾來控制國防部，專門設計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。在國防方面，以前的政府不應該一次又一次地輕信其他世界大國。
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.
過去15-20年來，美國一直在為超級大國的沖突做準備。中國是他們的主要對手，他們認為俄羅斯是歐洲的問題，只有歐盟拒絕把它的玩意整理好，然后不再被視為一個可靠的防御伙伴。所有人都樂于坐在美國的盾牌后面，通過討好俄羅斯和中國，每時每刻損害美國和自己的國家利益，同時削弱歐洲作為一個整體的地位。（這將是德國綠黨的遺產(chǎn)）
中國正處于可行的兵力投送能力的邊緣，并將開始以一種非常真實的方式在邊界和南中國海推進他們的主張。在本屆總統(tǒng)任期內(nèi)，他們將有能力這樣做，而且在當前的地緣政治形勢下，他們可能會這么做。這就是為什么美國如此努力地推動國內(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相當瘋狂，因為他缺乏正常政治的機智和耐心，他認為他可以強迫每個人做他想做的事，但如果認為這不是美國潛在立場的反映，那就太天真了。北約和歐盟等機構(gòu)笨拙的官僚作風在和平時期是可以容忍的，但除了在世界舞臺上發(fā)出沒有實權(quán)的美德信號之外，它們沒什么用處。
這讓英國處于一個非常奇怪的位置，在沖突的兩端都是一個主要的合作伙伴。由于地理位置和貢獻能力，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)實情況是，美國希望卷入一場事關(guān)存亡的沖突，如果發(fā)生這種情況，他們對其他國家的承諾將永遠排在自己的之后。
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”
大錯特錯。太平洋對英國或歐洲一點都不重要，我們肯定不會派海軍去那里和中國打仗。我不認為你們這些懷疑論者意識到西印度洋以外的任何地方對歐洲來說是多么的不重要和缺乏聯(lián)系。去他媽的太平洋，那不是我們的問題。
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。并且美國遭遇的事情對我們很重要。把它讓給中國將結(jié)束美國作為超級大國的統(tǒng)治地位，也將結(jié)束西方霸權(quán)給我們帶來的近乎無與倫比的和平與繁榮。
你不可能相信歐洲會扮演這個角色？我們花了3年時間才開始認真討論重新武裝，而歐洲的土地上卻發(fā)生了真正的武裝沖突。我們甚至沒有能力向烏克蘭提供足夠的武器，以阻止一個幾乎無法越過自己陸地邊界的小地帶的表情包級超級大國。
更不用說我們與該地區(qū)的文化和政治聯(lián)系，或者我們（整個歐洲）沒有資源或制造業(yè)基地來彌補我們在那里發(fā)生重大沖突時所失去的東西。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Just wait - “US signs huge weapons export deal with Russia”
等著吧——“美國與俄羅斯簽署巨額武器出口協(xié)議”
Except Russia has no money. Maybe they'll exchange weapons for rare Earth minerals extracted from occupied Ukraine.
除了俄羅斯沒錢。也許他們會用從被占領(lǐng)的烏克蘭開采的稀土礦交換武器。
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?
在這場邪惡的混亂中，中國會在什么時候抬起頭來，抓住機會成為支持世界其他國家對抗普京和特朗普的全球大國？
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.
顯而易見的是，特朗普正在讓歐洲自生自滅，因為美國正將重心轉(zhuǎn)向亞洲，以應對來自中國的威脅。
Let's go further - reduce dependence on everything American.
讓我們更進一步——減少對一切美國產(chǎn)品的依賴。