[原创翻译]Quora - 中国有能力发起像阿富汗、伊拉克战争 ...

来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/30 22:39:41


Is China capable of launching a large-scaleinternational war like America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why or why not ?
中国有能力发起像阿富汗、伊拉克战争一样的大型跨国战争吗？为什么？
The reason I'm wondering is that I've been readingseveral answers to another Quora question alluding to the fact that China isnot capable of launching a large war right now.  My immediate thoughtwas:  Why not?
我对此感兴趣的原因是我在另一条问题的几个答案中提及到，中国现在并无能力发起一场大型战争，我很好奇为什么。
1+ Comments • Share (1) • Report • Options
Marco A. Lanz
China's military simply doesn't have the ability toproject military strength and war-making capabilities against nations notbordering its lands.
中国军队在面对非邻近边境的国家时，显然没有能力发动战争和保护她的军队。
The PLA is a defensive force, established to repelinvasion and engage in high intensity warfare for shortened periods of time inorder to move aggressors to the negotiating table.
解放军是一支防御性军队，基于抵抗侵略和参加短期高烈度战争以迫使侵略者走上谈判桌的目的而建立。
The Chinese have limited access to foreign basesand lack a Blue Water to transport personnel and hardware.
中国军队缺乏境外军事基地和蓝海海军用于投送人员和装备。
While China could fight a large scale war againstRussia or India, it could not engage the United States or Europe (unless in adefensive posture).
中国可以与俄罗斯或印度展开大规模战争，但无法与美国或欧洲交战（Note：这里应该是指到美国或欧盟本土开战）（除非处于防御姿态）。
Historyalso dictates that China doesn't fight beyond its own borders, unless underextreme duress.
历史也揭示中国不会远离其边境线进行作战，除非其受到极端的威胁。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013

##################################################
54 第一条回答，获得54票
回答者：JonMixon
I have studied themajority of world conflicts from the Punic Wars until modern times
我曾研究过自布匿战争至今的所有主要国际战争。（O__O”……tree new bee）
No, China couldn't launchand win a major international war.
不能，中国无法发起一场重大的国际战争并获得胜利。

For myriad reasons, including:
众多的原因包括：
1.      China has never, in its history, won a war thattook place farther than areas relatively close its borders.
中国历史上，中国从未在一场发生在远离其边境线以外的战争中获得胜利。
2.      China has only "won" a single majorconflict in the last 50 years - That was against an incompetently led andill-prepared India in 1962.That was also a brief conflict and no air assetswere used.
在过去50年中，中国仅在一场单独的冲突中“赢”得胜利，对手是1962年无能以及措手不及的印度。那是一场非常短暂的而且没有空中力量参与的冲突。
3.     China has very few large cargo aircraft - It haslimited in-flight refueling capabilities and there's no evidence that Chinaroutinely drills on deploying its troops overseas by air to hostileterritories.
中国缺少大型运输机，缺少空中加油能力，而且，没有证据显示中国在军事演习中尝试过通过空军向海外敌对地区投送或部署军队。
4.     Chin has minimal amphibious forces - China has notperformed a successful amphibious assault since the 18th century and there's noevidence that it possesses the ability to do so.
中国只有有限的两栖攻击力量。自18世纪以来，中国从未成功发动过两栖行动，没有证据显示中国现在有此能力。
5.     China has minimal military maritime transportabilities - It also has never transported a large force by sea since , again,the 18th century. There's no reason to believe that they could.
中国只有有限的海上军事运输能力。同样，自18世纪以来，中国从未通过海上运输大批军队。没有证据显示中国现在有此能力。
6.     There are few countries where China could launch anattack against and not come into conflict with either a member of NATO, countrywith a defense treaty with the US or the US itself. Any of these would expandthe conflict into a war that China would almost certainly lose.
世界上只有少量国家中国可以攻击而不卷入与北约成员、与美国有共同防御跳跃或与美国本身的冲突之中。与上述任何一个国家的冲突将导致中国被卷入必将失败的战争。
7.     There is little proof that the upper levels of theChinese military are, in fact, competent. Most Chinese generals are morebusinessmen than warriors and it is unlikely that they would bring muchleadership to conflict situation.
事实上，缺乏足够的证据能够证实中国军方高层具有足够的能力。中国大部分将领更像生意人而不是战士，显然他们没有足够的领导能力掌控战争。
8.     The Chinese military is geared and trained moretoward suppressing internal dissent than it is for offensive military actions.It is difficult to believe that they could switch their training over to anoffensive role in a relatively short order.
中国军队更像是为镇压内部异见民众而装备和训练的，而非进行对外攻击性军事行动。很难相信，仅靠一个突击命令中国军队就能迅速变换角色训练成一支进攻性部队。
Upvote • 4+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013
该回答的评论：
Tristan Fernandes 1 vote by VarnitBanthia
True China cannot launch alarge scale attack at the same level of USA since the lack of resources (as youpointed out).
由于缺乏足够资源（如你原文指出），中国当然不能像美国一样发动一场大规模的攻击行动。
ButI don't think it is impossible, if they make the effort. Right now they have apretty powerful military which continuously modernizing.
但是这不是不可能的，只要他们倾尽全力。现在中国拥有相当规模而且在不断现代化的军事力量。
Also another point tomention is development resources they dedicate - take a look at the roads theybuilt up the Himalayan range.
另外值得指出的是他们致力发展的资源，看看他们在喜马拉雅山脉所建造的道路。
Also adding to your list,is the major internal conflicts China has inside and on its borders.
另外补充一点，中国的主要内部冲突在中国边境地区和边境线。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Jon Mixon: Nothingis impossible. However, many things are so unlikely that they have to besingled out. A nation which hasn't engaged in an overseas conflict in centurieswould have an exceptionally difficult time doing as such.
没有什么是不可能的。然而，很多迹象表明他们不会专门向这方面发展。一个已经一个多世纪没有发生过海外战争的国家如果发动海外战争显然会遭遇非常多的困难。
Share • Report • 24 Aug, 2013
Ryan Lackey 1 vote by MaryPatnaik
China could go to war withNorth Korea without any international opposition.  It's most likely thatthey'd do so after a collapse or coup or something, not as a direct war.
中国与北朝鲜开战就不会有其他国家干涉了，但应该是在他们发生颠覆、政变或其他事情后才出现，而不是直接战争。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
NorthKorea borders China. China's military history favors "home games."
北韩紧靠着中国。历史上中国军队最喜欢在家里玩躲猫猫。
Belbsir Mouad
let's not forget chineserole in the korean war
不要忘记中国人在朝鲜战争中的角色。
Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013
Jon Mixon
Who "forgot" it? China,at best forced a draw in a war where:
谁“忘记”了？中国，最多是在以下的情况下被迫议和：
1)     The US never attacked their bases in China.
美国从未攻击位于中国境内的基地。
2)     Where the US intentionally limited its aims tokeeping South Korea non-communists.
美国有意将其目标限制于保持南棒子不被赤化。
3)    The US declined to use nuclear weapons when iteasily could have.
美国在可随时动用核武器的情况下拒绝使用核武器。
4)    Where they were 25 miles north of the finalceasefire at the time the war ended.
战争结束时，他们在停战最终停火地点以北25公里处。（这句不太明白）

Frankly,China was fortunate the Harry Truman had difficulties at home. Had the UStaken more aggressive posture, it is likely that there wouldn't have beena communist government in China.

坦白说，杜鲁门在国内困难重重中国因此走了狗屎运。如果美国采取更具侵略性的姿态，或许中国现在就没有共产政权了。
Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013

##################################################
13 第二个回答，13票
Jim Gordon,
Third generation to servein the US military, grew up on air bases, served (USAF 1966-70 VN); US Dept ofState foreign service, 1974-84, ... (more)
根正苗红，上下三代都在美国军队当大兵，在空军基地长大，1966-70在越南，单位美国空军，19774-84美国外交部们。（后面没有显示出来）
Most of the cost anddifficulty of going to war outside the homeland is the problem of supplying andmaintaining the fighting forces.  Transportation and logistics are as vitalas combat capability.  Unlike the US, China's merchant marine and airtransport capabilities don't have the surplus capacity to serve the domesticeconomy AND the military forces at war.  
在本国以外进行战争的花费和困难绝大部分是怎样维持和补给战斗部队。运输、后期和战斗能力一样至关重要。不像美国，中国的船只和空中运输没有多余的能力同时为国内经济和处于战争状态的部队服务。
Force projection is aproblem as well.  China has sent naval vessels on long missions, to theMiddle East and around the Indian Ocean basin, but never in a large fleet ortask force.  Chinese ground forces, while they DO have experiencedeploying across their own very large country, haven't got any modernexperience of deploying and operating thousands of miles away from their homeand logistics bases.  Control of oceanic and air logistics routes andlines of communication would take forces away from the main mission effort.
军事力量的投送同样是一个大问题。中国曾经派遣海军舰艇前往中东和印度洋海域执行长期任务，但从来没有派出大型舰队或特遣部队。
China COULD fight alarge-scale, extended-term war in its own region, close to its own borders.
中国可以在境内或邻近边境的地区进行大型的长期性的战争。
Upvote • 2+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Comment
Balaji Viswanathan 2 votes (show)
China doesn't have majormilitary allies. Historically, China fought its battles alone. That is a bigfactor when fighting battles far from homeland.
中国没有重要的军事盟友。历史上，中国总是独自进行战争。而当远离国境进行战争时这是一个非常重要的因素。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Cheng Xuntao:Indeed. Allies can make logistics and projections much easier.
确实，盟友可以令补给和后勤更容易。
Alex Yactine
Could you please tell mewhere I can read more on this? I'm really interested about it!
能告诉我哪里有更多相关的资料么？我对此非常感兴趣。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Cheng Xuntao: Maybeyou are interested in how China withdraw its citizens from war zones such asthe Libya case. This can give you a clue about China's capability intransportation.
或许你会对中国如何在黎巴嫩等战乱地区撤离他的公民感兴趣。或者这会向你提供一些关于中国运输能力的线索。



Is China capable of launching a large-scaleinternational war like America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why or why not ?中国有能力发起像阿富汗、伊拉克战争一样的大型跨国战争吗？为什么？The reason I'm wondering is that I've been readingseveral answers to another Quora question alluding to the fact that China isnot capable of launching a large war right now.  My immediate thoughtwas:  Why not?我对此感兴趣的原因是我在另一条问题的几个答案中提及到，中国现在并无能力发起一场大型战争，我很好奇为什么。1+ Comments • Share (1) • Report • Options Marco A. Lanz China's military simply doesn't have the ability toproject military strength and war-making capabilities against nations notbordering its lands.
中国军队在面对非邻近边境的国家时，显然没有能力发动战争和保护她的军队。The PLA is a defensive force, established to repelinvasion and engage in high intensity warfare for shortened periods of time inorder to move aggressors to the negotiating table.
解放军是一支防御性军队，基于抵抗侵略和参加短期高烈度战争以迫使侵略者走上谈判桌的目的而建立。The Chinese have limited access to foreign basesand lack a Blue Water to transport personnel and hardware.
中国军队缺乏境外军事基地和蓝海海军用于投送人员和装备。While China could fight a large scale war againstRussia or India, it could not engage the United States or Europe (unless in adefensive posture). 中国可以与俄罗斯或印度展开大规模战争，但无法与美国或欧洲交战（Note：这里应该是指到美国或欧盟本土开战）（除非处于防御姿态）。
Historyalso dictates that China doesn't fight beyond its own borders, unless underextreme duress.历史也揭示中国不会远离其边境线进行作战，除非其受到极端的威胁。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
################################################## 54 第一条回答，获得54票 回答者：JonMixon I have studied themajority of world conflicts from the Punic Wars until modern times 我曾研究过自布匿战争至今的所有主要国际战争。（O__O”……tree new bee）No, China couldn't launchand win a major international war.
不能，中国无法发起一场重大的国际战争并获得胜利。
For myriad reasons, including:众多的原因包括：1.      China has never, in its history, won a war thattook place farther than areas relatively close its borders.中国历史上，中国从未在一场发生在远离其边境线以外的战争中获得胜利。2.      China has only "won" a single majorconflict in the last 50 years - That was against an incompetently led andill-prepared India in 1962.That was also a brief conflict and no air assetswere used.在过去50年中，中国仅在一场单独的冲突中“赢”得胜利，对手是1962年无能以及措手不及的印度。那是一场非常短暂的而且没有空中力量参与的冲突。3.     China has very few large cargo aircraft - It haslimited in-flight refueling capabilities and there's no evidence that Chinaroutinely drills on deploying its troops overseas by air to hostileterritories.中国缺少大型运输机，缺少空中加油能力，而且，没有证据显示中国在军事演习中尝试过通过空军向海外敌对地区投送或部署军队。4.     Chin has minimal amphibious forces - China has notperformed a successful amphibious assault since the 18th century and there's noevidence that it possesses the ability to do so.中国只有有限的两栖攻击力量。自18世纪以来，中国从未成功发动过两栖行动，没有证据显示中国现在有此能力。5.     China has minimal military maritime transportabilities - It also has never transported a large force by sea since , again,the 18th century. There's no reason to believe that they could.中国只有有限的海上军事运输能力。同样，自18世纪以来，中国从未通过海上运输大批军队。没有证据显示中国现在有此能力。6.     There are few countries where China could launch anattack against and not come into conflict with either a member of NATO, countrywith a defense treaty with the US or the US itself. Any of these would expandthe conflict into a war that China would almost certainly lose.世界上只有少量国家中国可以攻击而不卷入与北约成员、与美国有共同防御跳跃或与美国本身的冲突之中。与上述任何一个国家的冲突将导致中国被卷入必将失败的战争。7.     There is little proof that the upper levels of theChinese military are, in fact, competent. Most Chinese generals are morebusinessmen than warriors and it is unlikely that they would bring muchleadership to conflict situation.事实上，缺乏足够的证据能够证实中国军方高层具有足够的能力。中国大部分将领更像生意人而不是战士，显然他们没有足够的领导能力掌控战争。8.     The Chinese military is geared and trained moretoward suppressing internal dissent than it is for offensive military actions.It is difficult to believe that they could switch their training over to anoffensive role in a relatively short order.中国军队更像是为镇压内部异见民众而装备和训练的，而非进行对外攻击性军事行动。很难相信，仅靠一个突击命令中国军队就能迅速变换角色训练成一支进攻性部队。Upvote • 4+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013 该回答的评论：Tristan Fernandes 1 vote by VarnitBanthiaTrue China cannot launch alarge scale attack at the same level of USA since the lack of resources (as youpointed out).
由于缺乏足够资源（如你原文指出），中国当然不能像美国一样发动一场大规模的攻击行动。
ButI don't think it is impossible, if they make the effort. Right now they have apretty powerful military which continuously modernizing.
但是这不是不可能的，只要他们倾尽全力。现在中国拥有相当规模而且在不断现代化的军事力量。Also another point tomention is development resources they dedicate - take a look at the roads theybuilt up the Himalayan range.
另外值得指出的是他们致力发展的资源，看看他们在喜马拉雅山脉所建造的道路。Also adding to your list,is the major internal conflicts China has inside and on its borders.另外补充一点，中国的主要内部冲突在中国边境地区和边境线。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013Jon Mixon: Nothingis impossible. However, many things are so unlikely that they have to besingled out. A nation which hasn't engaged in an overseas conflict in centurieswould have an exceptionally difficult time doing as such.
没有什么是不可能的。然而，很多迹象表明他们不会专门向这方面发展。一个已经一个多世纪没有发生过海外战争的国家如果发动海外战争显然会遭遇非常多的困难。 Share • Report • 24 Aug, 2013 Ryan Lackey 1 vote by MaryPatnaikChina could go to war withNorth Korea without any international opposition.  It's most likely thatthey'd do so after a collapse or coup or something, not as a direct war.中国与北朝鲜开战就不会有其他国家干涉了，但应该是在他们发生颠覆、政变或其他事情后才出现，而不是直接战争。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013NorthKorea borders China. China's military history favors "home games."北韩紧靠着中国。历史上中国军队最喜欢在家里玩躲猫猫。 Belbsir Mouadlet's not forget chineserole in the korean war不要忘记中国人在朝鲜战争中的角色。Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013Jon MixonWho "forgot" it? China,at best forced a draw in a war where:谁“忘记”了？中国，最多是在以下的情况下被迫议和：1)     The US never attacked their bases in China.美国从未攻击位于中国境内的基地。2)     Where the US intentionally limited its aims tokeeping South Korea non-communists.美国有意将其目标限制于保持南棒子不被赤化。3)    The US declined to use nuclear weapons when iteasily could have.美国在可随时动用核武器的情况下拒绝使用核武器。4)    Where they were 25 miles north of the finalceasefire at the time the war ended.
战争结束时，他们在停战最终停火地点以北25公里处。（这句不太明白）

Frankly,China was fortunate the Harry Truman had difficulties at home. Had the UStaken more aggressive posture, it is likely that there wouldn't have beena communist government in China.

坦白说，杜鲁门在国内困难重重中国因此走了狗屎运。如果美国采取更具侵略性的姿态，或许中国现在就没有共产政权了。Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013
################################################## 13 第二个回答，13票 Jim Gordon,Third generation to servein the US military, grew up on air bases, served (USAF 1966-70 VN); US Dept ofState foreign service, 1974-84, ... (more) 根正苗红，上下三代都在美国军队当大兵，在空军基地长大，1966-70在越南，单位美国空军，19774-84美国外交部们。（后面没有显示出来） Most of the cost anddifficulty of going to war outside the homeland is the problem of supplying andmaintaining the fighting forces.  Transportation and logistics are as vitalas combat capability.  Unlike the US, China's merchant marine and airtransport capabilities don't have the surplus capacity to serve the domesticeconomy AND the military forces at war.  
在本国以外进行战争的花费和困难绝大部分是怎样维持和补给战斗部队。运输、后期和战斗能力一样至关重要。不像美国，中国的船只和空中运输没有多余的能力同时为国内经济和处于战争状态的部队服务。Force projection is aproblem as well.  China has sent naval vessels on long missions, to theMiddle East and around the Indian Ocean basin, but never in a large fleet ortask force.  Chinese ground forces, while they DO have experiencedeploying across their own very large country, haven't got any modernexperience of deploying and operating thousands of miles away from their homeand logistics bases.  Control of oceanic and air logistics routes andlines of communication would take forces away from the main mission effort.
军事力量的投送同样是一个大问题。中国曾经派遣海军舰艇前往中东和印度洋海域执行长期任务，但从来没有派出大型舰队或特遣部队。China COULD fight alarge-scale, extended-term war in its own region, close to its own borders. 中国可以在境内或邻近边境的地区进行大型的长期性的战争。Upvote • 2+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013 CommentBalaji Viswanathan 2 votes (show)China doesn't have majormilitary allies. Historically, China fought its battles alone. That is a bigfactor when fighting battles far from homeland.中国没有重要的军事盟友。历史上，中国总是独自进行战争。而当远离国境进行战争时这是一个非常重要的因素。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013Cheng Xuntao:Indeed. Allies can make logistics and projections much easier.确实，盟友可以令补给和后勤更容易。 Alex YactineCould you please tell mewhere I can read more on this? I'm really interested about it!
能告诉我哪里有更多相关的资料么？我对此非常感兴趣。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013Cheng Xuntao: Maybeyou are interested in how China withdraw its citizens from war zones such asthe Libya case. This can give you a clue about China's capability intransportation.
或许你会对中国如何在黎巴嫩等战乱地区撤离他的公民感兴趣。或者这会向你提供一些关于中国运输能力的线索。


##################################################
11 这个回答有11票
William Petroff, MostlyHarmless
Their army just isn'tdesigned for it right now and so they don't have the infrastructure in place tobe able to deploy men and material on a large scale in a foreign nation.
中国军队目前还不是为海外战争为目标而设计的，所以他们还没有足够的基础设施和能力大规模向海外部署部队和军事物资。
Here's the reality:
以下是事实：
· China's military has 208 transport planes, andthey're mostly short-range transports. For comparison, theUnited States has 278 C-130s and 217 C-17s, and that's just the two most commontransport planes that are in service.[1] China's air-transport capabilities areseverely lacking, meaning that they would have a hard time flying in theessentials like troops, tanks, or basic supplies.
中国军队目前拥有208架运输机，但大多数是短途运输机。作为比较，美国有278架C-130和217架C-17，而且这仅仅是两款最主要的在役运输机[注1]。中国严重缺乏空中投送能力，这意味着他们投送最基本的如军队、坦克或基础补给时将非常困难。
· China's naval transport capabilities aren't allthat capable of far-reaching deployments. They have nearly 100amphibious transport ships, but they're all relatively small; their largestship is still smaller than the United States' smallest amphibious assault ship.The mission the PLAN has been asked to do has essentially been to defendcoastal waters and be able to invade Taiwan, and so they've developed theirweapons systems accordingly. That means a lot of faster, but short-ranged,troop transports and corresponding support ships.
中国海军投送能力并非所有军舰都能进行远洋部署。他们拥有将近100艘两栖运输舰艇，但大部分吨位较小；他们最大的两栖舰艇比美军最少的两栖舰艇还要小。解放军被赋予的基本任务就是保卫海岸线和入侵台湾，他们据此目的发展相关武器系统，这意味着需要大量快速、但航程短的运输船和相关船只。
· China lacks the global infrastructure to supportforeign deployment. The United States has about 700 basesthroughout the world. This global network of American bases allows ships andplanes to operate without regard for range, it makes it easier to deploy assetsbecause of ready-made infrastructure (i.e. runways, utilities, communications,etc.), and it allows for a more rapid response in case something goes wrong. Totop it off, the United States operates the largest aircraft carrier fleet,meaning that they essentially have 10 mobile bases that they can get almostanywhere in the world. China doesn't have any of that, and while they have afunctional aircraft carrier, it's powered by conventional methods (oil) meaningthat refueling becomes an issue.
中国缺乏全球性的设施以支持海外部署。美军在全球拥有大约700个海外军事基地，美军军事基地网络容许舰艇和飞机运转不需要考虑距离，完善的基础设施（如跑道、公共设备、通讯等）使物资更易部署，发生紧急事件时可以更快作出反应。最重要的是，美军拥有最大的航母舰队，这意味着有10个移动基地可以到达全球所有地区。中国没有上述任何一种资源，中国所拥有的训练型航母是常规动力的（燃油），意味着加油将成为难题。
· As costly as large-scale wars are for the UnitedStates, it's likely that it would be much more expensive for China. Alot of China's military strength is still wrapped up in the fact that the justhave a lot of people/tanks/airplanes. The United States can do more with fewerpeople because they have better arms; while China has spent a great deal ofmoney and expended a large effort to modernize their armed forces, a good dealof that effort has gone to developing technology that isn't necessarily useablein such a conflict.[2] It would very likely take China more troops toaccomplish things.[3]
像美帝进行的那种大型战争，对于中国来说花费将会更为昂贵。中国军事力量事实上只是主要致力于拥有大量人员、坦克、飞机。因为拥有更好的装备，美帝可以用更少的人去干更多的事。中国花费了大量的金钱和努力去实现武器装备的现代化，大量的精力用于发展在这样的战争中（指海外战争）用不上的技术。这将导致中国使用更多的兵力去完成任务。

Look, the reality is that, as powerful as China's military is, the PLA isn'treally designed to project power that far beyond its own boarders; and sincemany of their neighbors' armed forces aren't exactly withering at the vine (orallied with the United States), that's not exactly that most preferable choice.And while it's a problem that they've been trying to rectify, it's one thattakes a pretty long time to develop a solution for.
事实就是这样，即使中国军队如此强大，但解放军并非设计用于向远离自身边境的地区投送军事力量。在中国的邻居军事力量并非日渐减弱的情况下（或与美国结盟），（发展海外军事投送能力）并非最好的选择。即使中国尝试更正发展方向，这也将需要相当长的时间去发展（海外作战能力）。
[1] There are about another73 C-5s, 89 C-130Js, and hundreds of tankers.
   另外大约还有73架C-5，89架C-130J和数以百计的空中加油机。
[2] Some of their biggestareas of improvement have been in modernizing their ballistic missiles, ordeveloping systems that are designed to work as countermeasures against moretechnologically advanced weapons systems (the anti-ship ballistic missile,boxes that trick radar homing missiles, etc).
中国最大的进步领域是他们弹道导弹的现代化，和设计研发能与先进武器系统对抗的系统（反舰导弹，反雷达容器？，自动寻踪导弹等）
[3] A fact that exacerbatesthe already debilitating transport issues.
一个将使很囧的运输能力更加囧囧的因素。
Upvote • 2+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • Updated26 Aug, 2013
Comment
Jim Gordon
China's civil air transportassets would almost certainly be called on to support the militaryoperations as well.
中国的民用运输飞机肯定将被征兆用于支持军事行动。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Peter Yu:  747s and MD-11s aren't particularly useful asmilitary transports. They have very stringent runway requirements and theycan't really hold anything larger or heavier than a pallet.
747和MD-11对于军事运输不是很给力。它们有非常严格的跑道要求，而且，它们基本上连货架也运输不了。
Plus, taking those assetsout of commercial service would have huge repercussions on domestic airfreight.
另外，将这些民用装备投入于非民用领域将在国际空运行业引起非常负面的影响。
Jim Gordon 1 vote by WilliamPetroff
Carrying several hundredtroops per aircraft is significant, as is the added logistical capability, oncethe spearhead units capture an airfield.
只要先头部队占领一个机场，作为额外的后勤保障能力，每架飞机运送数百部队有非常重大的意义，
Yes, commandeering thecivil air fleet would paralyze civilian air transportation, as my answerstated.  The civil fleet would probably be released rapidly after theinitial operations.
是的，正像我回答口头指出，征用民用航空器将使民间空中运输系统瘫痪。但是，民用航空器很可能在初始的行动结束后被解除占用。
BTW, the US still maintainsits Civil Reserve Air Fleet hold on some US airliners, and mobilized part of itfor Operation Desert Shield and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
另外，在某些美国民航航班上美军仍然有维持持有民用航空后备力量，而且在沙漠之盾行动和伊拉克自由行动中动员了这些力量。
Share • Report • 23 Aug, 2013
Peter Yu
If I'm not mistaken, mostU.S. troops are deployed to the Middle East on commercial aircraft. Since we'remaking a comparison between the U.S.'s and China's force projectioncapabilities, it doesn't make sense to include civilian air assets.
如果我没错的话，大部分美军是通过民航飞机投送到中东的。但我们在比较中美之间的投送能力时，不应将民用航空器包括在内。
Still, compared to theamount of military hardware that needs to be deployed far outweighs actualtroops. 10,000 troops would only require about 30 flights on a jumbo jet.
尽管如此，投送军事装备需要的运输能力远远超过实际兵力. 运送1万名士兵只需30架大型喷气式客机。
Helicopters, groundvehicles, and other heavy equipment tend to be the bottleneck when it comes todeploying an occupying force.
投送直升机、地面车辆和其他重型装备到前线部队时投送能力显然会遭遇瓶颈。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Peter Yu
Your C-17 figure is a bittoo high. Boeing has manufactured 190 C-17s for the U.S. according to Wikipedia(not 217) but the line hasn't shut down yet (although no additional orders havebeen placed . . . yet).
你所讲的C-17数量太多了，根据维基百科，波音公司制造了190架（而非217）C-17给美国军方。C-17生产线现在还未关闭（尽管现在还没有生产订单。）
As for the number of C-130sin service, I think your figure is a bit too low but I wasn't able to find adefinitive answer. There have been 2300 manufactured but many have been takenout of service and many are operated by other countries. There are 135 C-130Jsin service by the USAF and USMC (not including the 6 with the USCG), whichshould definitely be included in the total C-130 quantity.
就在役的C-130数量来说，你说的数量有点太少了，但我无法查实准确的数据。C-130总共制造了2300架，但相当一部分已经退役或卖给了其他国家。135架C130J服役于美国空军和海军陆战队（不包括海岸警卫队），这个数字肯定被包含在C-130总量的数字内。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
William Petroff 1 vote by Peter Yu
I'm working off of this list: Listof active United States military aircraft. For simplicities sake, I omitted theMarine's C-130Js because they are, I think, exclusively used as tankers.
我准备了一张在役的美军飞机清单。为了简明易懂，我忽略了海军陆战队的C-130J，因为我认为它们只是作空中加油机用。
Share • Report • 23 Aug, 2013



################################################## 11 这个回答有11票 William Petroff, MostlyHarmless Their army just isn'tdesigned for it right now and so they don't have the infrastructure in place tobe able to deploy men and material on a large scale in a foreign nation.中国军队目前还不是为海外战争为目标而设计的，所以他们还没有足够的基础设施和能力大规模向海外部署部队和军事物资。Here's the reality:以下是事实：· China's military has 208 transport planes, andthey're mostly short-range transports. For comparison, theUnited States has 278 C-130s and 217 C-17s, and that's just the two most commontransport planes that are in service.[1] China's air-transport capabilities areseverely lacking, meaning that they would have a hard time flying in theessentials like troops, tanks, or basic supplies.中国军队目前拥有208架运输机，但大多数是短途运输机。作为比较，美国有278架C-130和217架C-17，而且这仅仅是两款最主要的在役运输机[注1]。中国严重缺乏空中投送能力，这意味着他们投送最基本的如军队、坦克或基础补给时将非常困难。· China's naval transport capabilities aren't allthat capable of far-reaching deployments. They have nearly 100amphibious transport ships, but they're all relatively small; their largestship is still smaller than the United States' smallest amphibious assault ship.The mission the PLAN has been asked to do has essentially been to defendcoastal waters and be able to invade Taiwan, and so they've developed theirweapons systems accordingly. That means a lot of faster, but short-ranged,troop transports and corresponding support ships.中国海军投送能力并非所有军舰都能进行远洋部署。他们拥有将近100艘两栖运输舰艇，但大部分吨位较小；他们最大的两栖舰艇比美军最少的两栖舰艇还要小。解放军被赋予的基本任务就是保卫海岸线和入侵台湾，他们据此目的发展相关武器系统，这意味着需要大量快速、但航程短的运输船和相关船只。· China lacks the global infrastructure to supportforeign deployment. The United States has about 700 basesthroughout the world. This global network of American bases allows ships andplanes to operate without regard for range, it makes it easier to deploy assetsbecause of ready-made infrastructure (i.e. runways, utilities, communications,etc.), and it allows for a more rapid response in case something goes wrong. Totop it off, the United States operates the largest aircraft carrier fleet,meaning that they essentially have 10 mobile bases that they can get almostanywhere in the world. China doesn't have any of that, and while they have afunctional aircraft carrier, it's powered by conventional methods (oil) meaningthat refueling becomes an issue.中国缺乏全球性的设施以支持海外部署。美军在全球拥有大约700个海外军事基地，美军军事基地网络容许舰艇和飞机运转不需要考虑距离，完善的基础设施（如跑道、公共设备、通讯等）使物资更易部署，发生紧急事件时可以更快作出反应。最重要的是，美军拥有最大的航母舰队，这意味着有10个移动基地可以到达全球所有地区。中国没有上述任何一种资源，中国所拥有的训练型航母是常规动力的（燃油），意味着加油将成为难题。· As costly as large-scale wars are for the UnitedStates, it's likely that it would be much more expensive for China. Alot of China's military strength is still wrapped up in the fact that the justhave a lot of people/tanks/airplanes. The United States can do more with fewerpeople because they have better arms; while China has spent a great deal ofmoney and expended a large effort to modernize their armed forces, a good dealof that effort has gone to developing technology that isn't necessarily useablein such a conflict.[2] It would very likely take China more troops toaccomplish things.[3]像美帝进行的那种大型战争，对于中国来说花费将会更为昂贵。中国军事力量事实上只是主要致力于拥有大量人员、坦克、飞机。因为拥有更好的装备，美帝可以用更少的人去干更多的事。中国花费了大量的金钱和努力去实现武器装备的现代化，大量的精力用于发展在这样的战争中（指海外战争）用不上的技术。这将导致中国使用更多的兵力去完成任务。
Look, the reality is that, as powerful as China's military is, the PLA isn'treally designed to project power that far beyond its own boarders; and sincemany of their neighbors' armed forces aren't exactly withering at the vine (orallied with the United States), that's not exactly that most preferable choice.And while it's a problem that they've been trying to rectify, it's one thattakes a pretty long time to develop a solution for.
事实就是这样，即使中国军队如此强大，但解放军并非设计用于向远离自身边境的地区投送军事力量。在中国的邻居军事力量并非日渐减弱的情况下（或与美国结盟），（发展海外军事投送能力）并非最好的选择。即使中国尝试更正发展方向，这也将需要相当长的时间去发展（海外作战能力）。 [1] There are about another73 C-5s, 89 C-130Js, and hundreds of tankers.
   另外大约还有73架C-5，89架C-130J和数以百计的空中加油机。[2] Some of their biggestareas of improvement have been in modernizing their ballistic missiles, ordeveloping systems that are designed to work as countermeasures against moretechnologically advanced weapons systems (the anti-ship ballistic missile,boxes that trick radar homing missiles, etc).
中国最大的进步领域是他们弹道导弹的现代化，和设计研发能与先进武器系统对抗的系统（反舰导弹，反雷达容器？，自动寻踪导弹等）[3] A fact that exacerbatesthe already debilitating transport issues.一个将使很囧的运输能力更加囧囧的因素。Upvote • 2+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • Updated26 Aug, 2013 CommentJim GordonChina's civil air transportassets would almost certainly be called on to support the militaryoperations as well.中国的民用运输飞机肯定将被征兆用于支持军事行动。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013Peter Yu:  747s and MD-11s aren't particularly useful asmilitary transports. They have very stringent runway requirements and theycan't really hold anything larger or heavier than a pallet.747和MD-11对于军事运输不是很给力。它们有非常严格的跑道要求，而且，它们基本上连货架也运输不了。Plus, taking those assetsout of commercial service would have huge repercussions on domestic airfreight.另外，将这些民用装备投入于非民用领域将在国际空运行业引起非常负面的影响。 Jim Gordon 1 vote by WilliamPetroffCarrying several hundredtroops per aircraft is significant, as is the added logistical capability, oncethe spearhead units capture an airfield.
只要先头部队占领一个机场，作为额外的后勤保障能力，每架飞机运送数百部队有非常重大的意义，Yes, commandeering thecivil air fleet would paralyze civilian air transportation, as my answerstated.  The civil fleet would probably be released rapidly after theinitial operations.
是的，正像我回答口头指出，征用民用航空器将使民间空中运输系统瘫痪。但是，民用航空器很可能在初始的行动结束后被解除占用。BTW, the US still maintainsits Civil Reserve Air Fleet hold on some US airliners, and mobilized part of itfor Operation Desert Shield and Operation Iraqi Freedom.另外，在某些美国民航航班上美军仍然有维持持有民用航空后备力量，而且在沙漠之盾行动和伊拉克自由行动中动员了这些力量。Share • Report • 23 Aug, 2013 Peter YuIf I'm not mistaken, mostU.S. troops are deployed to the Middle East on commercial aircraft. Since we'remaking a comparison between the U.S.'s and China's force projectioncapabilities, it doesn't make sense to include civilian air assets.
如果我没错的话，大部分美军是通过民航飞机投送到中东的。但我们在比较中美之间的投送能力时，不应将民用航空器包括在内。Still, compared to theamount of military hardware that needs to be deployed far outweighs actualtroops. 10,000 troops would only require about 30 flights on a jumbo jet.
尽管如此，投送军事装备需要的运输能力远远超过实际兵力. 运送1万名士兵只需30架大型喷气式客机。Helicopters, groundvehicles, and other heavy equipment tend to be the bottleneck when it comes todeploying an occupying force.投送直升机、地面车辆和其他重型装备到前线部队时投送能力显然会遭遇瓶颈。 Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013 Peter YuYour C-17 figure is a bittoo high. Boeing has manufactured 190 C-17s for the U.S. according to Wikipedia(not 217) but the line hasn't shut down yet (although no additional orders havebeen placed . . . yet).
你所讲的C-17数量太多了，根据维基百科，波音公司制造了190架（而非217）C-17给美国军方。C-17生产线现在还未关闭（尽管现在还没有生产订单。）As for the number of C-130sin service, I think your figure is a bit too low but I wasn't able to find adefinitive answer. There have been 2300 manufactured but many have been takenout of service and many are operated by other countries. There are 135 C-130Jsin service by the USAF and USMC (not including the 6 with the USCG), whichshould definitely be included in the total C-130 quantity.就在役的C-130数量来说，你说的数量有点太少了，但我无法查实准确的数据。C-130总共制造了2300架，但相当一部分已经退役或卖给了其他国家。135架C130J服役于美国空军和海军陆战队（不包括海岸警卫队），这个数字肯定被包含在C-130总量的数字内。Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
William Petroff 1 vote by Peter Yu
I'm working off of this list: Listof active United States military aircraft. For simplicities sake, I omitted theMarine's C-130Js because they are, I think, exclusively used as tankers.我准备了一张在役的美军飞机清单。为了简明易懂，我忽略了海军陆战队的C-130J，因为我认为它们只是作空中加油机用。Share • Report • 23 Aug, 2013


##################################################
3 回答有3个支持
Alex Jouravlev, AbstractionConsultant
Unlikely anyone doubts thatChina can defeat North Korea at a drop of a hat. Why would they do that isanother question.
与某些人的想象不同，中国可以瞬间击败北朝鲜，但他们为什么要这样做是另一个问题。
DefeatingVietnam-Cambodia-Laos would be harder and politically prohibitive. Thailand,Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal - will result in India building nukes like notomorrow, however IMHO doable, presuming the major powers sit on thesidelines.
击败越南-柬埔寨-老挝会更难一点而且将导致极高的政治成本。泰国、孟加拉、缅甸、尼泊尔 – 会导致三哥种蘑菇引发世界末日，假设大国都处于观望状态下的话。
Ditto about Mongolia,however in this case the presumption of major powers sitting on the sidelinesis rather theoretical.
对蒙古一样，旨意大国持观望状态只有理论上的可能。
I am not implying that anyof those countries would not put up a fierce defense - just saying the powerwould be overwhelming.
我不是说上面这些国家不能进行有效的抵抗行动，只是想说（中国？其他大国？）的力量对他们而言具有压倒性的优势。
Overall, with the exceptionof India and of course Russia, China is able to invade and defeat any countryit has a border with. I seriously doubt they want to.
总的来说，除了印度和俄罗斯，中国有能力击败任何邻近国家，但我怀疑他们会不会这样做。
Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • Updated29 Oct

##################################################
6 答案有6票支持
Joseph Wang, ex-VP,Big investment bank - Hong Kong 香港某银行前副总裁
The basic reason is thatChina saw how keeping a massive global army bankrupted the Soviet Union, anddecided not to make that mistake.  
最基本的原因是中国亲历苏联因军备竞赛而轰然倒塌，中国不想重蹈覆辙。
The Chinese military isfocused on
中国军队专注于：
1)     keeping the Party in power and handling naturaldisasters
保持党的领导和处理重大自然灾害
2)     keeping the Russians and the Japanese from invadingthe Mainland and
防卫俄罗斯和日本入侵本土
3)    keeping enough force to deter Japan and the US fromhelping Taiwan declare formal independence.
保持足够的军力防止美日协助台湾独立。
Given that China is arelatively poor country, all of those requirements take up all of the militarybudget.  China simply cannot afford and has no real desire to projectpower outside of East Asia.
考虑到中国是一个贫穷的国家（晕，香港的高管土鳖还不知道土豪现在穷得只剩下钱么？），上述方针的实施占用了全部的军事预算。中国没有能力也没有意愿向东亚以外的地区部署军力。
Two other points.
另外两点：
1)Because Chinese army is incapable of global power projection and because theChinese military was specifically designed to be *incapable* of powerprojection, most Chinese people don't quite understand why the United Stateswould accuse it of being aggressive, and are suspicious and offended when theUS says things like this.  From the Chinese point of view, its military ispurely defensive, and when the US talks about how dangerous the Chinesemilitary is, its part of some plot to keep China weak.
因中国军队没有全球投送能力以及中国军队并非设计用于全球部署，当美帝指责中国具有侵略性时，大部分中国民众很困惑、不理解和感到被冒犯。根据中国的观点，中国军队是完全防御性的，美国指责中国军队非常危险的同时，他国内正图谋让中国保持羸弱。
2) Things change.  Youcan compare the US military in 1920 and 1950 for example.  What USmilitary analysts are more concerned about is not "can China launch alarge scale international war *now*'.  It can't.  What worries peopleis "how quickly could China build a military that is capable of launchinga large scale international war if it wanted to?"  My answer would be15-20 years, which sound like a long time, except military planning has thesesorts of time horizons.
事情正在变化，以1920和1950的美军比较为例。美国军事情报员关心的不是“中国‘现在’能否发起一场大型的海外战争”，显然不可以。人们更关心的是“如果中国需要的话，中国能在多长的时间段内建造一支能发起海外战争的军队”。我估计需要15-20年，看起来很长，但军事规划是需要这样长的投资回报期。
Military planners areworried about China not because of what it could do now, but what it could doin 2040.  We can be reasonably confidence that Peru or Belgium or evenCanada is not going have global power capacity any time in the next 150years.  This isn't the situation with China.
军事战略规划人员不担心中国现在能做什么，但非常担心到2040中国的能力会发展到什么程度。我们可以非常肯定秘鲁或者比利时甚至加拿大在未来150年内都不会拥有全球性的军事力量，但这种预测不适用于中国。
Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • Updated31 Aug, 2013

##################################################
2 回答有两票支持
Robert Lee, Well,that's been fun...
It depends on thegeography.  The most recent large scale conflict was China's invasion ofVietnam in the late 1970's.  This was done to dissuade Soviet expansioninto Southeast Asia.
这取决于地缘。中国最近一次的大型战争是70年代后期入侵越南（对越自卫反击战）。这次战争阻止了苏联向东南亚扩张。
Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • 25Aug, 2013

##################################################

Haosen Wang, BigEEs
All replies are focusing onthe hardware such as weapons, troops, planes, guns, tanks, but you guys don'tknow what the Chinese are thinking about and what they care if a war happens.All the information you got is based on the rumors and biased information. Haveyou been to China? Have you learned Chinese history carefully? Have you readChinese military books about wars and theories? If not, please listen to me, Iam telling you why China hasn't attacked its neighbors  proactively inthousands of years.
所有回答都只关注如武器、部队、飞机、枪支、坦克等，但你们不了解发生战争时中国人他们在想什么或关心什么。
Theart of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life anddeath, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquirywhich can on no account be neglected.
<TheArt of War> by Sun Tzu (544 BC - 496 BC, China)
孙子曰：兵者，国之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。
《孙子兵法》，孙武（公元前544-496年，中国）
This is a motto printed oneveryone's forehead in China. A war means death and life, a war means developor ruin, a war means long period full of sorrow and sadness. China has sufferedsuch a long history of wars and battles for thousands of years, the experiencegained by ancestors is still telling the truth. Lives are the most valuablethings in this world, any actions which would lead to death should beconsidered seriously. They know these rules, they appreciate that.
这一句格言深深印在每个中国人的脑海中。战争意味着生与死，战争意味着发展与毁灭，战争意味着长时期的悲伤和绝望。几千年以来，中国经历了长时间的战乱，先人们遗留的智慧指出这一事实。生存是世界上最珍贵的事物，任何会招致死亡的行动将被严肃对待。他们知道并重视这些规则。
Hence to fight and conquerin all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists inbreaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
故上兵伐谋，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城。
Thereforethe skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; hecaptures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdomwithout lengthy operations in the field.
故善用兵者，屈人之兵而非战也，拔人之城而非攻也，毁人之国而非久也
<The Art of War> by Sun Tzu (544 BC - 496 BC, China)
《孙子兵法》，孙武（公元前544-496年，中国）
War is the last choice fora country if there is no other choices for their people. For example, thecountry is invaded or insulated. If not, leaders should not take a war. Now,China is developing fast. Though there exists thousands of problems, that isstill far not enough to select the last choice for them. If you have been toChina, I believe that you can figure it out why they don't want wars.
战争时中国人民没有其他选择时使用的最后手段，例如，中国被入侵或被隔绝。如非遭遇上述情况，领导人绝不发起战争。现在，中国正飞速发展，尽管存在众多问题，但离使用最终的战争手段还有很长很长的距离。如果你到过中国，我相信你一定知道中国人为什么不想要战争。
In summary, Chinese peopleare not the peoples who can launch a war if they have enough weapons, theirculture and spirits gained from a long history effect its off springs verymuch. I hope my answer could help you to understand China better. Thanks.
总之，中国人并非那种拿着棒子就想抡人的家伙（-_-!这句是自由发挥），中国漫长的历史文化和精神无时无刻影响着他们，我希望我的回答能帮你更加了解中国。谢谢。
Upvote • 1+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 25Aug, 2013

Eric Vicini 2 votes (show)
This is a good comment,however it doesn't address the question.
非常好的评论，但答非所问。
Also, while China hasalways been a pacifist country, it now claims islands which are also claimed byother countries and is showing some readiness to use military power to exertits claim. That's a situation which could end up with war.
好吧，即使中国在一段时间内是个和平国家，但就某些海岛的主权归属问题，中国似乎已准备好使用军队去捍卫他的主权声明。这种情况下很可能以战争收场。
China also attackedVietnam.
另外，中国曾攻击过越南。
Share • Report • 25 Aug, 2013
Haosen Wang 1 vote by RupertBaines
Thanks for your attention,sir, however, your opinion is really a little bit biased. Imagine this, ifMexico or Canada is attacked by Russia, would US be silent? Territorialdisputes exist generally among most countries, no country would claim that weare willing to lose these areas as gifts for our neighbors, right?
多谢你的关注，但是，你的意见是有写偏见。想象一下，如果加拿大或墨西哥被俄罗斯入侵，美国会什么都不做吗？领土纷争存在于大部分国家，没有哪个国家会放弃领土并将其当成礼物送给邻居，对吧？
Yeah, China really showssome attitudes in international affairs which is different from its past whenno one hears its voice. China never shows a stand in any wars in past tens ofyears unless these matters its own. I think we really need to update ourcold-war views on this country. It is a normal country, like a normal person,who will also be upset when someone claims "This house belongs to meinstead of you".
是的，在没有人关注中国的意见时，中国在国际事务中显示出来的态度的确与以往不同。中国在过去十年从未在任何战争中站队除非牵涉到自身。对于中国，我想我们应该从冷战思维中走出来。这是一个正常的国家，正如一个正常人在其他人说他的房子属于别人的时候表现出的不高兴。
Share • Report • 25 Aug, 2013

##################################################

Anonymous 匿名回答
Yes, China could wage andwin a large scale war, but not against geographically distantadversaries.
没错，中国可以发动和赢得一场大型战争，但不是从地理上远离中国的敌人中获得。
Other answers havethoroughly covered why China is incapable of projecting it's military. But mostof China's conflicts have historically been territorial conflicts with it'sadjacent neighbors. If China wished to invade Vietnam, for example, it wouldonly fail due to international interference, not it's own militarycapabilities.
其他回答非常全面的阐述了中国为什么不能向海外投送其军队。但大部分中国参与的冲突中，历史上大部分是与邻近国家的领土冲突。
While not capable offielding the most sophisticated military, China has the manpower and industrialcapacity to raise an army dwarfing that of WWII-era Russia or Germany. Far morethan enough to overrun Hanoi, or a disobedient North Korea. In a conflict withIndia, it would have the upper hand (as it did in 1962) but mutual nucleararmament complicates the matter (though it's noteworthy that India has a nofirst strike policy).
在没有能力防备大部分尖端军事力量的同时，中国拥有足够的人力资源和工业能力去建造一支令二战时期德国和俄国相形见绌的军队，这支军队足够摧毁河内或者不听话的北棒子。在与印度的冲突中，中国或许会占据上风（正如1962年的情况），但双方的核武装备会令问题复杂化（值得注意的是印度没有不首先使用核武器的承诺或政策）。
And speaking of WWII,expect China to fight a war similar to how war was fought then. China wouldtake serious losses - "Soviet Russia" serious, not 'US inVietnam" serious - and would engage in total war. Civilians that aided theenemy would be slaughtered without so much as a mention on the news.
说到二战，预料中国会像二战时的情况一样进行战争。中国会遭受非常严重的损失，损失将苏联一样，而非美军在越南，这将导致全面战争。带路党将会被枪毙而新闻将鲜有提及。
Some respondents seem toforget that military capabilities at the start of a major war can changedramatically by the end of that war. I would not put it beyond China, with it'scentralized government and overwhelming manpower, to win a war againstvirtually any adversary if was able to effectively defend its borders and notfall prey to nuclear attack. The amount of time it would take for China todevelop a cross-seas invasion force if that was it's sole national directivemay not be insignificant, but it is finite.
一些回答者看来忘了开战时的军事能力在战争结束时会发生显著的变化。我不会将中国排除在这种情况之外，中国所拥有的中央集权政府和压倒性的人力资源优势，中国完全有能力在不适用核武的情况下防卫其领土，击败任何敌人。通过国家指令中国将在一定时间内拥有不容小视的海外进攻军事力量，虽然这种力量是有限的。
On the topic of powerprojection, it's also important to remember that the US can wage war anywhereon Earth because of it's unparalleled network of friends and allies. Even ifChina did develop projection capabilities like that of the US, would it haveaccess to the Panama Canal? Or the Suez? Or the Strait of Malacca? Probably'no' to those and more in most scenarios. This should be taken into accountwhen examining China's military development. Though given the serious lack ofpower projection, it would be nonsensical to image China declaring war on somefar off minor power like Somalia or Peru.
在军事力量投送的话题上，必需注意的是，得益于美国规模空前的盟友网络，美国可以在地球上任何一个地方发动战争。即是中国有了美国一样的军事投送能力，他能通过巴拿马运河吗？苏伊士运河？马六甲海峡？在这种情形下更多是‘不能’。中国在发展军力时必须将这个因素纳入考虑范围。由于缺乏军事投送能力，所以假设中国向远离本土的次要国家如索马里或秘鲁宣战是非常荒谬的。
Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013


##################################################
3     3票支持
Eric Vicini, Think!
China doesn't have theability to project power overseas beyond its territory nor the means to defendthe sea lanes necessary for the supply lines.
中国没有向远离本土的海外投送军力的能力，也不能保护他的补给线航道。
It doesn't have the foreignbases needed for air lifting nor the equipment.
中国没有可用于飞机和设备起降的海外军事基地。
It probably couldn't eveninvade Taiwan at this point.
此时中国或许连台湾也入侵不了。
Upvote • 1+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013



################################################## 3 回答有3个支持 Alex Jouravlev, AbstractionConsultant Unlikely anyone doubts thatChina can defeat North Korea at a drop of a hat. Why would they do that isanother question.
与某些人的想象不同，中国可以瞬间击败北朝鲜，但他们为什么要这样做是另一个问题。DefeatingVietnam-Cambodia-Laos would be harder and politically prohibitive. Thailand,Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal - will result in India building nukes like notomorrow, however IMHO doable, presuming the major powers sit on thesidelines.
击败越南-柬埔寨-老挝会更难一点而且将导致极高的政治成本。泰国、孟加拉、缅甸、尼泊尔 – 会导致三哥种蘑菇引发世界末日，假设大国都处于观望状态下的话。Ditto about Mongolia,however in this case the presumption of major powers sitting on the sidelinesis rather theoretical.
对蒙古一样，旨意大国持观望状态只有理论上的可能。I am not implying that anyof those countries would not put up a fierce defense - just saying the powerwould be overwhelming.
我不是说上面这些国家不能进行有效的抵抗行动，只是想说（中国？其他大国？）的力量对他们而言具有压倒性的优势。Overall, with the exceptionof India and of course Russia, China is able to invade and defeat any countryit has a border with. I seriously doubt they want to. 总的来说，除了印度和俄罗斯，中国有能力击败任何邻近国家，但我怀疑他们会不会这样做。Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • Updated29 Oct
################################################## 6 答案有6票支持 Joseph Wang, ex-VP,Big investment bank - Hong Kong 香港某银行前副总裁 The basic reason is thatChina saw how keeping a massive global army bankrupted the Soviet Union, anddecided not to make that mistake.  
最基本的原因是中国亲历苏联因军备竞赛而轰然倒塌，中国不想重蹈覆辙。The Chinese military isfocused on 中国军队专注于：1)     keeping the Party in power and handling naturaldisasters保持党的领导和处理重大自然灾害2)     keeping the Russians and the Japanese from invadingthe Mainland and 防卫俄罗斯和日本入侵本土3)    keeping enough force to deter Japan and the US fromhelping Taiwan declare formal independence.
保持足够的军力防止美日协助台湾独立。Given that China is arelatively poor country, all of those requirements take up all of the militarybudget.  China simply cannot afford and has no real desire to projectpower outside of East Asia.
考虑到中国是一个贫穷的国家（晕，香港的高管土鳖还不知道土豪现在穷得只剩下钱么？），上述方针的实施占用了全部的军事预算。中国没有能力也没有意愿向东亚以外的地区部署军力。Two other points.
另外两点：
1)Because Chinese army is incapable of global power projection and because theChinese military was specifically designed to be *incapable* of powerprojection, most Chinese people don't quite understand why the United Stateswould accuse it of being aggressive, and are suspicious and offended when theUS says things like this.  From the Chinese point of view, its military ispurely defensive, and when the US talks about how dangerous the Chinesemilitary is, its part of some plot to keep China weak.
因中国军队没有全球投送能力以及中国军队并非设计用于全球部署，当美帝指责中国具有侵略性时，大部分中国民众很困惑、不理解和感到被冒犯。根据中国的观点，中国军队是完全防御性的，美国指责中国军队非常危险的同时，他国内正图谋让中国保持羸弱。2) Things change.  Youcan compare the US military in 1920 and 1950 for example.  What USmilitary analysts are more concerned about is not "can China launch alarge scale international war *now*'.  It can't.  What worries peopleis "how quickly could China build a military that is capable of launchinga large scale international war if it wanted to?"  My answer would be15-20 years, which sound like a long time, except military planning has thesesorts of time horizons.
事情正在变化，以1920和1950的美军比较为例。美国军事情报员关心的不是“中国‘现在’能否发起一场大型的海外战争”，显然不可以。人们更关心的是“如果中国需要的话，中国能在多长的时间段内建造一支能发起海外战争的军队”。我估计需要15-20年，看起来很长，但军事规划是需要这样长的投资回报期。Military planners areworried about China not because of what it could do now, but what it could doin 2040.  We can be reasonably confidence that Peru or Belgium or evenCanada is not going have global power capacity any time in the next 150years.  This isn't the situation with China.军事战略规划人员不担心中国现在能做什么，但非常担心到2040中国的能力会发展到什么程度。我们可以非常肯定秘鲁或者比利时甚至加拿大在未来150年内都不会拥有全球性的军事力量，但这种预测不适用于中国。Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • Updated31 Aug, 2013
################################################## 2 回答有两票支持 Robert Lee, Well,that's been fun... It depends on thegeography.  The most recent large scale conflict was China's invasion ofVietnam in the late 1970's.  This was done to dissuade Soviet expansioninto Southeast Asia. 这取决于地缘。中国最近一次的大型战争是70年代后期入侵越南（对越自卫反击战）。这次战争阻止了苏联向东南亚扩张。Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • 25Aug, 2013
##################################################
Haosen Wang, BigEEs All replies are focusing onthe hardware such as weapons, troops, planes, guns, tanks, but you guys don'tknow what the Chinese are thinking about and what they care if a war happens.All the information you got is based on the rumors and biased information. Haveyou been to China? Have you learned Chinese history carefully? Have you readChinese military books about wars and theories? If not, please listen to me, Iam telling you why China hasn't attacked its neighbors  proactively inthousands of years.所有回答都只关注如武器、部队、飞机、枪支、坦克等，但你们不了解发生战争时中国人他们在想什么或关心什么。Theart of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life anddeath, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquirywhich can on no account be neglected.<TheArt of War> by Sun Tzu (544 BC - 496 BC, China)孙子曰：兵者，国之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。《孙子兵法》，孙武（公元前544-496年，中国）This is a motto printed oneveryone's forehead in China. A war means death and life, a war means developor ruin, a war means long period full of sorrow and sadness. China has sufferedsuch a long history of wars and battles for thousands of years, the experiencegained by ancestors is still telling the truth. Lives are the most valuablethings in this world, any actions which would lead to death should beconsidered seriously. They know these rules, they appreciate that.这一句格言深深印在每个中国人的脑海中。战争意味着生与死，战争意味着发展与毁灭，战争意味着长时期的悲伤和绝望。几千年以来，中国经历了长时间的战乱，先人们遗留的智慧指出这一事实。生存是世界上最珍贵的事物，任何会招致死亡的行动将被严肃对待。他们知道并重视这些规则。Hence to fight and conquerin all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists inbreaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. 故上兵伐谋，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城。Thereforethe skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; hecaptures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdomwithout lengthy operations in the field.故善用兵者，屈人之兵而非战也，拔人之城而非攻也，毁人之国而非久也<The Art of War> by Sun Tzu (544 BC - 496 BC, China)《孙子兵法》，孙武（公元前544-496年，中国） War is the last choice fora country if there is no other choices for their people. For example, thecountry is invaded or insulated. If not, leaders should not take a war. Now,China is developing fast. Though there exists thousands of problems, that isstill far not enough to select the last choice for them. If you have been toChina, I believe that you can figure it out why they don't want wars.战争时中国人民没有其他选择时使用的最后手段，例如，中国被入侵或被隔绝。如非遭遇上述情况，领导人绝不发起战争。现在，中国正飞速发展，尽管存在众多问题，但离使用最终的战争手段还有很长很长的距离。如果你到过中国，我相信你一定知道中国人为什么不想要战争。In summary, Chinese peopleare not the peoples who can launch a war if they have enough weapons, theirculture and spirits gained from a long history effect its off springs verymuch. I hope my answer could help you to understand China better. Thanks.总之，中国人并非那种拿着棒子就想抡人的家伙（-_-!这句是自由发挥），中国漫长的历史文化和精神无时无刻影响着他们，我希望我的回答能帮你更加了解中国。谢谢。Upvote • 1+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 25Aug, 2013
Eric Vicini 2 votes (show)
This is a good comment,however it doesn't address the question.
非常好的评论，但答非所问。Also, while China hasalways been a pacifist country, it now claims islands which are also claimed byother countries and is showing some readiness to use military power to exertits claim. That's a situation which could end up with war.
好吧，即使中国在一段时间内是个和平国家，但就某些海岛的主权归属问题，中国似乎已准备好使用军队去捍卫他的主权声明。这种情况下很可能以战争收场。China also attackedVietnam.另外，中国曾攻击过越南。Share • Report • 25 Aug, 2013
Haosen Wang 1 vote by RupertBaines
Thanks for your attention,sir, however, your opinion is really a little bit biased. Imagine this, ifMexico or Canada is attacked by Russia, would US be silent? Territorialdisputes exist generally among most countries, no country would claim that weare willing to lose these areas as gifts for our neighbors, right?多谢你的关注，但是，你的意见是有写偏见。想象一下，如果加拿大或墨西哥被俄罗斯入侵，美国会什么都不做吗？领土纷争存在于大部分国家，没有哪个国家会放弃领土并将其当成礼物送给邻居，对吧？Yeah, China really showssome attitudes in international affairs which is different from its past whenno one hears its voice. China never shows a stand in any wars in past tens ofyears unless these matters its own. I think we really need to update ourcold-war views on this country. It is a normal country, like a normal person,who will also be upset when someone claims "This house belongs to meinstead of you".是的，在没有人关注中国的意见时，中国在国际事务中显示出来的态度的确与以往不同。中国在过去十年从未在任何战争中站队除非牵涉到自身。对于中国，我想我们应该从冷战思维中走出来。这是一个正常的国家，正如一个正常人在其他人说他的房子属于别人的时候表现出的不高兴。Share • Report • 25 Aug, 2013

##################################################
Anonymous 匿名回答 Yes, China could wage andwin a large scale war, but not against geographically distantadversaries.
没错，中国可以发动和赢得一场大型战争，但不是从地理上远离中国的敌人中获得。Other answers havethoroughly covered why China is incapable of projecting it's military. But mostof China's conflicts have historically been territorial conflicts with it'sadjacent neighbors. If China wished to invade Vietnam, for example, it wouldonly fail due to international interference, not it's own militarycapabilities.
其他回答非常全面的阐述了中国为什么不能向海外投送其军队。但大部分中国参与的冲突中，历史上大部分是与邻近国家的领土冲突。While not capable offielding the most sophisticated military, China has the manpower and industrialcapacity to raise an army dwarfing that of WWII-era Russia or Germany. Far morethan enough to overrun Hanoi, or a disobedient North Korea. In a conflict withIndia, it would have the upper hand (as it did in 1962) but mutual nucleararmament complicates the matter (though it's noteworthy that India has a nofirst strike policy).
在没有能力防备大部分尖端军事力量的同时，中国拥有足够的人力资源和工业能力去建造一支令二战时期德国和俄国相形见绌的军队，这支军队足够摧毁河内或者不听话的北棒子。在与印度的冲突中，中国或许会占据上风（正如1962年的情况），但双方的核武装备会令问题复杂化（值得注意的是印度没有不首先使用核武器的承诺或政策）。And speaking of WWII,expect China to fight a war similar to how war was fought then. China wouldtake serious losses - "Soviet Russia" serious, not 'US inVietnam" serious - and would engage in total war. Civilians that aided theenemy would be slaughtered without so much as a mention on the news.
说到二战，预料中国会像二战时的情况一样进行战争。中国会遭受非常严重的损失，损失将苏联一样，而非美军在越南，这将导致全面战争。带路党将会被枪毙而新闻将鲜有提及。Some respondents seem toforget that military capabilities at the start of a major war can changedramatically by the end of that war. I would not put it beyond China, with it'scentralized government and overwhelming manpower, to win a war againstvirtually any adversary if was able to effectively defend its borders and notfall prey to nuclear attack. The amount of time it would take for China todevelop a cross-seas invasion force if that was it's sole national directivemay not be insignificant, but it is finite.
一些回答者看来忘了开战时的军事能力在战争结束时会发生显著的变化。我不会将中国排除在这种情况之外，中国所拥有的中央集权政府和压倒性的人力资源优势，中国完全有能力在不适用核武的情况下防卫其领土，击败任何敌人。通过国家指令中国将在一定时间内拥有不容小视的海外进攻军事力量，虽然这种力量是有限的。On the topic of powerprojection, it's also important to remember that the US can wage war anywhereon Earth because of it's unparalleled network of friends and allies. Even ifChina did develop projection capabilities like that of the US, would it haveaccess to the Panama Canal? Or the Suez? Or the Strait of Malacca? Probably'no' to those and more in most scenarios. This should be taken into accountwhen examining China's military development. Though given the serious lack ofpower projection, it would be nonsensical to image China declaring war on somefar off minor power like Somalia or Peru.在军事力量投送的话题上，必需注意的是，得益于美国规模空前的盟友网络，美国可以在地球上任何一个地方发动战争。即是中国有了美国一样的军事投送能力，他能通过巴拿马运河吗？苏伊士运河？马六甲海峡？在这种情形下更多是‘不能’。中国在发展军力时必须将这个因素纳入考虑范围。由于缺乏军事投送能力，所以假设中国向远离本土的次要国家如索马里或秘鲁宣战是非常荒谬的。Upvote • Comment • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013

################################################## 3     3票支持 Eric Vicini, Think! China doesn't have theability to project power overseas beyond its territory nor the means to defendthe sea lanes necessary for the supply lines.
中国没有向远离本土的海外投送军力的能力，也不能保护他的补给线航道。It doesn't have the foreignbases needed for air lifting nor the equipment.
中国没有可用于飞机和设备起降的海外军事基地。It probably couldn't eveninvade Taiwan at this point. 此时中国或许连台湾也入侵不了。Upvote • 1+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013
23 Aug, 2013




等运20 国产航母 小平顶 国产鱼鹰 国产野牛 国产黑鹰 都先装备上再说
这种论调不错，有利于掩盖事实的真相
一个粗壮大汉的死亡可以是被拳头直接KO的也可以是被毒药一命呜呼的，强盗民族的上层深谙这个道理，怎么它们的子民还依然这么不开化。
说的也是，中国几千年大部分时间都在内战，和周边其它民族作战，边境线一直不确定。
没错，人家说的是事实。
不过再过20年再看。
没有海外基地，鞭长莫及


这是美国的评论？的确要比鬼子、棒子、WW有水平的多。
我们现在也的确没有能力在伊拉克那种地方发动大规模的战争，我们的军队才迈出远洋的第一步而已
就算以后有实力了，我们也不会像美国人那么蠢，全球四处结盟并承诺保护它们，然后四处树敌，把自己的力量浪费在担当世界警察幻想真能拯救世界上

这是美国的评论？的确要比鬼子、棒子、WW有水平的多。
我们现在也的确没有能力在伊拉克那种地方发动大规模的战争，我们的军队才迈出远洋的第一步而已
就算以后有实力了，我们也不会像美国人那么蠢，全球四处结盟并承诺保护它们，然后四处树敌，把自己的力量浪费在担当世界警察幻想真能拯救世界上
这个作者明显不了解中国历史，中国历史上强盛时期的远征是怎么打的：在汉朝，班超就带了几个哥们，拿了一张汉朝的文书就带领一帮听话的西域小国去打另一帮不听话的西域小国，这活他几乎干了一辈子，几乎未用朝廷一兵就干掉了50多个国家；到了唐朝，其他没变化，不过连主将居然都是个从万里之遥过来的高句丽人(高仙芝）。所以MD太年轻，还是要从TG这里多学学啊。
这个真是好评论
很客观
卧槽，和MD自己比海外军力投放的硬实力……这裤衩不是红，是紫的滴血……
海外投送，的确无力，不争辩，过20年再看!
作者这种田忌赛马文真心屌炸天，还他妈18世纪就提tg的两栖登录作战了。怎么不说朱元璋那时的米畜的作战呢？怎么就不说说王玄策的那个时代，白皮猪的战神们有那些战绩可以完虐王玄策的
TNND，没几个真正懂中国的
只是外国军迷的答案，国外靠谱的军迷不见得比国内靠谱的军迷还靠谱。
我觉得分析的挺理性的，有点偏西方也是可以理解的毕竟立场不同
有一点中国确实应该检讨，我们缺乏盟友，即使在历史上最强大的时候，我们只与正在被侵略的属国结盟，共御外敌而已。

除了大唐，但大唐最后也毁在外族将领手里。
NHK555 发表于 2014-4-17 23:45
这个作者明显不了解中国历史，中国历史上强盛时期的远征是怎么打的：在汉朝，班超就带了几个哥们，拿了一张 ...
班超那不仅是个人有胆识，更重要的是国家异常强大作为后盾
I have studied themajority of world conflicts from the Punic Wars until modern times
我曾研究过自布匿战争至今的所有主要国际战争。（O__O”……tree new bee）
No, China couldn't launchand win a major international war.
不能，中国无法发起一场重大的国际战争并获得胜利。
------------------------------------------------------

这家伙肯定没有研究过中国古代战争 尤其是汉匈三百年战争
中国的海外投送力量现阶段确实战力为5，没什么好说的。楼上所举大多为陆上战争，远洋作战不到时候。现阶段能保证拿下台湾，威慑第二岛链才是正经活。
吹牛逼。我就问你，现在中国民航运输机总量是多少？军用运输机呢？
现阶段，为什要发动那样的战争？命题不成立，暂时没不要讨论，我们该干什么接着干，不要被干扰
金木水 发表于 2014-4-17 23:33
说的也是，中国几千年大部分时间都在内战，和周边其它民族作战，边境线一直不确定。
那是因为和别的民族打着打着就变成内战了
等着瞧吧！
不发威狮子被当成病猫了吧
不发威狮子被当成病猫了吧
你12年注册的号，能憋到现在发这样的帖子，沉得够深啊，擦！
解放军木有大军舰只有一些小舢板，木有现代化直升机只有几架医疗救援机，木有现代化的战斗机只有一些气球吹的假道具，木有真正的职业军人只有一些宝贝独生子..........，什么都木有，结论兔子就是兔子，只会吃萝卜白菜对世界木有威胁
其实说白了这本身就是对中国实力的人可，你看他们怎么不去讨论鬼子棒子猴子呢
兔子这么可爱当然没有威胁了。有了威胁你还能说什么呢？打得过吗你。
NHK555 发表于 2014-4-17 23:45
这个作者明显不了解中国历史，中国历史上强盛时期的远征是怎么打的：在汉朝，班超就带了几个哥们，拿了一张 ...
这个不是只有一个作者，这个是有个人在提问，然后很多人回答，类似百度知道
有客观评论，也有不熟悉华夏历史的妄断。
在考虑美国因素下，能且只能对越南发起
[原创翻译]Quora - 中国有能力发起像阿富汗、伊拉克战争 ... Quora - 中国有能力发起像阿富汗、伊拉克战争一样的大型 ... [原创] 中国有能力！！！ 【原创翻译】Quora（美国知乎）上的三哥已经把LCA吹成4+ ... 原创翻译——朝鲜发狠话 原创翻译：《经济学人》警告中国经济过热 [原创]~~《透视中国的航母计划》~~翻译 [原创翻译]路透社：珠海航展标志中国雄心 [译文转载] quora问答：中国是帝国吗？ [原创吐血翻译]毛主义者眼中的印度与中国 (原创翻译)路透社：中国实力增长，台湾已经落后 原创翻译，《外交事务》评中国——巴基斯坦关系