我觉得是时候发展一些威力近似于核武器的“临界武器”了 ...

来源:百度文库 编辑:超级军网 时间:2024/03/28 21:47:21
就像我们不相信美国会对中国使用核武器一样,美国人也认为我党高层为了保证经济发展,即使在面对美国支持台湾独立,也不会使用核武器!我觉得是时候发展一些威力近似于核武器的“临界武器”了!

绥靖政策,别让台湾成为下一个捷克斯洛伐克 Don't Let China Swallow Taiwan
2015-04-29  moodsoccerplay  31434  105  2
译文简介
没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹,不仅是经济上的,还是政治,社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言,中国,在经济上太重要,在军事上又太强大,尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。
译文来源
原文地址:http://nationalinterest.org
正文翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:moodsoccerplay 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-343846-1-1.html

Allowing China to conquer Taiwan would almost certainly fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them.

放任中国征服台湾非但不会遏止其扩张的野心,反而会让它越发膨胀。



J. Michael Cole
April 23, 2015

J·迈克尔·科尔
2015年4月23日

With the prospects of a transition of power next year, the punditry is once again shifting into high gear with alarmist messages about the risk of renewed tensions in the Taiwan Strait. As always, it is the Taiwanese side—not only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but also the millions of Taiwanese who want to maintain their way of life—that is being blamed for the potential risks, not the bully on the other side who is aiming his canons at the island.

随着将于明年到来的权力交接越来越近,认为台湾海峡将再次笼罩在紧张的气氛之中的看法也随之而来。和往常一样,要为此背黑锅的那一方在台湾——不光是民进党,也包括了数百万想要保持自己的生活方式的台湾人,而不是对岸那个把炮口对准了这座岛屿的恶霸。

ltaaaTxt

The gist of his idea is that China's national power has become such that Taiwan cannot hope to resist it and the international community, the United States included, will not intervene on its behalf, lest doing so spark a major conflagration in the Asia-Pacific and hurt their economies.

他的观点有一个核心内容,那就是中国的国力已经强大到令台湾所望尘莫及的地步,而包括美国在内的国际社会,将不会冒着在亚太地区掀起战火并损害自身的经济的风险来替台湾撑腰。

In an op-ed, titled"The harsh reality that Taiwan faces" published in the Straits Times on April 15, White spells it all out. "Taiwan and its friends and admirers everywhere have to think very carefully about how to handle the dangerous period that lies ahead and to consider what is ultimately in the best interest of the Taiwanese people, as well as the rest of us."

怀特于4月15日在新加坡《海峡时报》上发表了一篇题为"台湾所面对的严酷事实"的署名评论文章,他在该文中称:"台湾和它的朋友以及各地的仰慕者们应该认真思考一下应当如何应对即将到来的危险期,以及台湾人民的最大利益究竟是什么。我们大家都应该思考这个问题。"

"The conclusions," he writes, "will be uncomfortable, but inescapable." In other words, White argues that Taiwan's capitulation, and abandonment by the international community, is the only option.

他写道:"其结论必将令人感到不舒服,但却是不可逃避的。"言下之意,国际社会只能放弃台湾,而台湾,唯一的选择就是投降。

The problem with White's über-Realist position is that it rests on a series of false assumptions about China. To be fair to White, he doesn't get it all wrong. He correctly identifies Beijing's impatience under Xi Jinping and is almost certainly right when he says that a future DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leader would not "return to policies as provocative to China as those of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chen"—referring to former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian—but that he or she would likely be more assertive than President Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy over the past seven years has primarily been to bend over backwards to please Beijing. (The so-called greater assertiveness of the future leader will be nothing more than a reflection of popular expectations in democratic Taiwan.)

怀特的这一立场是建立在对中国的一系列误判之上等的。不过老实说,他并不完全是错的。至少他正确指出了XJP治下的中国变得越来越急躁,以及民进党和国民党未来的领导人"不会重新推行李先生和陈先生的那些挑衅味十足的政策"——他指的是前总统李登辉和陈水扁——但是他(她)的立场将会比马英九总统更加坚决,后者在过去七年的政策就是卑躬屈膝地去讨好北京。(未来领导人的所谓的更加坚决将仅仅是是回应民主的台湾公众的期待)

However, White fails in his prescriptions, however laudable his intention to avoid major escalations may be. He writes:

然而,不管他那试图避免局势恶化的意图多么正当和可贵,他还是犯了一些错误。他写道:

No one visiting Taipei can fail to be impressed by what the Taiwanese have achieved in recent decades, not just economically but also politically, socially and culturally. But the harsh reality is that no country is going to sacrifice its relations with China in order to help Taiwan preserve the status quo. China is simply too important economically, and too powerful militarily, for anyone to confront it on Taiwan's behalf, especially when everyone knows how determined China is to achieve reunification eventually.

没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹,不仅是经济上的,还是政治,社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言,中国,在经济上太重要,在军事上又太强大,尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。

The argument that a regional hegemon has become so powerful that smaller parties shouldn't resist it and are undeserving of international support is a recipe for disaster, as it presages a return to an international relations system that led to two world wars.

这种"当一个地区霸主变得十分强大时,小势力既不应该反抗也不应该寻求国际支持"的论断就是灾难的种子,它无疑是在开历史倒车,当年就是这种国际关系模式导致了两次世界大战。

We all know what good it did the world when the great powers left Czechoslovakia to fend for itself against Nazi Germany. The idea here isn't to compare Beijing to Berlin under Hitler, but simply to point out the internal logic and dynamics of expansionism, and how appeasement isn't the best answer to it.

我们都知道当年列强为了安抚纳粹德国而牺牲掉捷克斯洛伐克给世界带来了什么。当然这里不是把北京和小胡子时期的柏林相提并论,而是要指出扩张主义的本质和可能带来的变数,以及绥靖政策为什么不是最好的应对方式。

ltaaaTxt

Arguing for the preservation of Taiwan isn't simply a symptom of wishful thinking by naïve liberals who want to save a democracy against authoritarianism; the Realists' point that it should be bargained away can be met on similar terms. Abandoning Taiwan would likely encourage Chinese expansionism while giving it more tools to do so. In other words, the tradeoff, rather than ease tensions, would risk much greater instability in future.

不仅仅是那些天真地喊着要从专制独裁手中拯救自由民主的自由主义者们喜欢讨论保卫台湾;从实际的角度上来看也会得到相似的结论。放弃台湾很有可能将鼓励中国的扩张主义并让其获得更多手段达到其目的。换句话说,和缓和紧张局势相比,同对方进行交易反而会给未来埋下动乱的种子

Another problem with White's argument is that it relies on the belief that the U.S. and its allies are a spent force. While it is true that Washington faces great challenges, this is a refrain that we have heard time and again over the past three quarters of a century, perhaps most emphatically in the months following the Vietnam War, which concluded 40 years ago this week. How often did we hear that the United States was "falling behind" the Soviet Union, or that it had no will to fight and was about to abandon its allies in Europe and Asia? If we can learn one thing from history, it is that the United States has been there before, and that it has a tendency to bounce back.

怀特的论断还有另外一个问题,那就是他认为美国和其盟友已经衰落。不可否认,华盛顿目前的确面临了很大的挑战,只是我们似乎已经持续"衰落"了四分之三个世纪,尤其是越南战争刚结束后的那几个月(话说这周就是越南战争结束40周年)。在过去,诸如"美国已经不如苏联了"或者"美国已经不想打仗了""美国就要放弃欧洲和亚洲的盟友了"之类的话我们听的还少吗?如果我们多读读历史,就会知道,美国以前也曾遇到过困难和挫折,但是,困难挫折和是压不倒美国的。

In the present scenario, we should also not discount Tokyo's ability and desire to ensure that Taiwan doesn't fall into China's hands. As a pillar of the U.S. security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Japan is unlikely to sit by idly as its next-door neighbor is taken over by China.

况且在当下,我们也不应忽略东京确保台湾不落入中国之手的能力和决心。作为美国在亚太安地区全结构的中流砥柱,日本不大可能眼巴巴的看着自己的邻居被中国占领。

Yet another flaw in White's worldview is his depiction of Beijing as an unbeatable opponent. He writes:

而怀特的世界观还有一点很荒谬,那就是他把北京描绘成了一个不可战胜等的对手,他写道:

the stark reality is that these days, there is not much the US can realistically do to help Taipei stand up to serious pressure from Beijing.
Back in 1996 when they last went toe-to-toe over Taiwan, the US could simply send a couple of aircraft carriers into the area to force China to back off. Today the balance of power is vastly different: China can sink the carriers, and their economies are so intertwined that trade sanctions of the kind the US used against Russia recently are simply unthinkable.

如今,残酷的事实却是美国几乎无法为台湾在受到来自北京的强大压力时提供多少实质性的帮助。1996年台海危机时,美国只要派几艘航空母舰过去就能喝退中国。而如今双方的力量对比已经发生了很大的变化:中国有能力击沉航空母舰,加上中美之间经济往来密切,如今美国拿经济制裁这种用来对付俄罗斯的手段来对付中国是行不通的。

He continues:
Any US effort to support Taiwan militarily against China would be almost certain to escalate into a full-scale US-China war and quite possibly a nuclear exchange. That would be a disaster for everyone, including, of course, the people of Taiwan itself—far worse than reunification, in fact.

他还说到:
美国采取任何军事手段来帮助台湾对抗中国将毫无疑问挑起中美之间的全面战争,甚至是核战。那将是所有人的灾难,当然包括台湾人自己——这种结果比统一更可怕。

Not only is this defeatism, it treats China as if it did not rely just as heavily on the world economy for its own prosperity. It also assumes that the untested Chinese military would prevail in any scenario and would even risk nuclear annihilation for the sake of seizing Taiwan, which arguably misreads the intentions (and pragmatism) of the Chinese leadership, whose main strategy is to achieve exactly what White counsels in his article—to win the war against Taiwan without a fight, to have it handed over on a silver platter.

这种思维简直就是是彻头彻尾的失败主义,说得好像中国自己的繁荣就不用靠经济似的。不仅如此,它还臆想中国那支没有经过考验的军队居然能在任何情况下都能打胜仗,居然会为了拿下台湾不惜打核战,这无疑是对中国领导层的意图的一种误读,正如怀特在其文章中所提到的,他们的主要策略就是兵不血刃地拿下台湾,让它自己将自己双手奉上。

For all its might, China isn't above the sting of sanctions or embarrassing defeats in wartime, given that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) hasn't had actual combat experience since 1979 when it ventured into Vietnam and got a bloody nose for its troubles.

尽管中国有些实力,但它并不是没有尝过制裁和战败的滋味,回想起来人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。

And while White warns that "There is a real danger that the Taiwanese overestimate the international support they can rely on if Beijing decides to get tough," he fails to mention that for its part, the international community tends to underestimate the dedication of the Taiwanese topreserve their way of life and identity.

而怀特在警告"台湾人高估了他们会在北京打算动粗时所能得到的国际支持"时却忽略了这一点,那就是国际社会也低估了台湾人保卫自己的生活方式和国家认同的决心。

The defense of Taiwan along moral lines is a perfectly sensible position to take, and as White himself seems to imply, it would be very sad indeed if this successful experiment in democratization in Asia were to fail because larger forces held different ideas regarding its future. Luckily for Taiwan, the virtues and defensibility of its democracy aren't the only arguments in its favor. In the Realists' playbook, there is every reason for making sure that Taiwan does not fall under Beijing's—and PLA—control.

从道德角度上来看保卫台湾是完全正当的,怀特本人也在试图表达这样一点,那就是在亚洲,一次成功的民主实验仅仅因为有一个更庞大的势力对其未来抱有异议就要遭受失败是一件令人痛心的事。不过幸运的是,对于台湾而言,民主所带来的吸引力和生命力并不是它手中唯一的筹码。从现实的角度来看,台湾不会落入北京和解放军的控制的理由还有很多。

J. Michael Cole, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is editor in chief of www.thinking-taiwan.com, a senior non-resident fellow at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, and an Associate researcher at the French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC) in Taipei.

J·迈克尔·科尔,前加拿大安全情报局分析师,www.thinking-taiwan.com网站总编,诺丁汉大学中国政策研究所非常驻研究员,台北法国当代中国研究中心副研究员。
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/16464.html就像我们不相信美国会对中国使用核武器一样,美国人也认为我党高层为了保证经济发展,即使在面对美国支持台湾独立,也不会使用核武器!我觉得是时候发展一些威力近似于核武器的“临界武器”了!

绥靖政策,别让台湾成为下一个捷克斯洛伐克 Don't Let China Swallow Taiwan
2015-04-29  moodsoccerplay  31434  105  2
译文简介
没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹,不仅是经济上的,还是政治,社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言,中国,在经济上太重要,在军事上又太强大,尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。
译文来源
原文地址:http://nationalinterest.org
正文翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:moodsoccerplay 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-343846-1-1.html

Allowing China to conquer Taiwan would almost certainly fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them.

放任中国征服台湾非但不会遏止其扩张的野心,反而会让它越发膨胀。



J. Michael Cole
April 23, 2015

J·迈克尔·科尔
2015年4月23日

With the prospects of a transition of power next year, the punditry is once again shifting into high gear with alarmist messages about the risk of renewed tensions in the Taiwan Strait. As always, it is the Taiwanese side—not only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but also the millions of Taiwanese who want to maintain their way of life—that is being blamed for the potential risks, not the bully on the other side who is aiming his canons at the island.

随着将于明年到来的权力交接越来越近,认为台湾海峡将再次笼罩在紧张的气氛之中的看法也随之而来。和往常一样,要为此背黑锅的那一方在台湾——不光是民进党,也包括了数百万想要保持自己的生活方式的台湾人,而不是对岸那个把炮口对准了这座岛屿的恶霸。

ltaaaTxt

The gist of his idea is that China's national power has become such that Taiwan cannot hope to resist it and the international community, the United States included, will not intervene on its behalf, lest doing so spark a major conflagration in the Asia-Pacific and hurt their economies.

他的观点有一个核心内容,那就是中国的国力已经强大到令台湾所望尘莫及的地步,而包括美国在内的国际社会,将不会冒着在亚太地区掀起战火并损害自身的经济的风险来替台湾撑腰。

In an op-ed, titled"The harsh reality that Taiwan faces" published in the Straits Times on April 15, White spells it all out. "Taiwan and its friends and admirers everywhere have to think very carefully about how to handle the dangerous period that lies ahead and to consider what is ultimately in the best interest of the Taiwanese people, as well as the rest of us."

怀特于4月15日在新加坡《海峡时报》上发表了一篇题为"台湾所面对的严酷事实"的署名评论文章,他在该文中称:"台湾和它的朋友以及各地的仰慕者们应该认真思考一下应当如何应对即将到来的危险期,以及台湾人民的最大利益究竟是什么。我们大家都应该思考这个问题。"

"The conclusions," he writes, "will be uncomfortable, but inescapable." In other words, White argues that Taiwan's capitulation, and abandonment by the international community, is the only option.

他写道:"其结论必将令人感到不舒服,但却是不可逃避的。"言下之意,国际社会只能放弃台湾,而台湾,唯一的选择就是投降。

The problem with White's über-Realist position is that it rests on a series of false assumptions about China. To be fair to White, he doesn't get it all wrong. He correctly identifies Beijing's impatience under Xi Jinping and is almost certainly right when he says that a future DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leader would not "return to policies as provocative to China as those of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chen"—referring to former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian—but that he or she would likely be more assertive than President Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy over the past seven years has primarily been to bend over backwards to please Beijing. (The so-called greater assertiveness of the future leader will be nothing more than a reflection of popular expectations in democratic Taiwan.)

怀特的这一立场是建立在对中国的一系列误判之上等的。不过老实说,他并不完全是错的。至少他正确指出了XJP治下的中国变得越来越急躁,以及民进党和国民党未来的领导人"不会重新推行李先生和陈先生的那些挑衅味十足的政策"——他指的是前总统李登辉和陈水扁——但是他(她)的立场将会比马英九总统更加坚决,后者在过去七年的政策就是卑躬屈膝地去讨好北京。(未来领导人的所谓的更加坚决将仅仅是是回应民主的台湾公众的期待)

However, White fails in his prescriptions, however laudable his intention to avoid major escalations may be. He writes:

然而,不管他那试图避免局势恶化的意图多么正当和可贵,他还是犯了一些错误。他写道:

No one visiting Taipei can fail to be impressed by what the Taiwanese have achieved in recent decades, not just economically but also politically, socially and culturally. But the harsh reality is that no country is going to sacrifice its relations with China in order to help Taiwan preserve the status quo. China is simply too important economically, and too powerful militarily, for anyone to confront it on Taiwan's behalf, especially when everyone knows how determined China is to achieve reunification eventually.

没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹,不仅是经济上的,还是政治,社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言,中国,在经济上太重要,在军事上又太强大,尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。

The argument that a regional hegemon has become so powerful that smaller parties shouldn't resist it and are undeserving of international support is a recipe for disaster, as it presages a return to an international relations system that led to two world wars.

这种"当一个地区霸主变得十分强大时,小势力既不应该反抗也不应该寻求国际支持"的论断就是灾难的种子,它无疑是在开历史倒车,当年就是这种国际关系模式导致了两次世界大战。

We all know what good it did the world when the great powers left Czechoslovakia to fend for itself against Nazi Germany. The idea here isn't to compare Beijing to Berlin under Hitler, but simply to point out the internal logic and dynamics of expansionism, and how appeasement isn't the best answer to it.

我们都知道当年列强为了安抚纳粹德国而牺牲掉捷克斯洛伐克给世界带来了什么。当然这里不是把北京和小胡子时期的柏林相提并论,而是要指出扩张主义的本质和可能带来的变数,以及绥靖政策为什么不是最好的应对方式。

ltaaaTxt

Arguing for the preservation of Taiwan isn't simply a symptom of wishful thinking by naïve liberals who want to save a democracy against authoritarianism; the Realists' point that it should be bargained away can be met on similar terms. Abandoning Taiwan would likely encourage Chinese expansionism while giving it more tools to do so. In other words, the tradeoff, rather than ease tensions, would risk much greater instability in future.

不仅仅是那些天真地喊着要从专制独裁手中拯救自由民主的自由主义者们喜欢讨论保卫台湾;从实际的角度上来看也会得到相似的结论。放弃台湾很有可能将鼓励中国的扩张主义并让其获得更多手段达到其目的。换句话说,和缓和紧张局势相比,同对方进行交易反而会给未来埋下动乱的种子

Another problem with White's argument is that it relies on the belief that the U.S. and its allies are a spent force. While it is true that Washington faces great challenges, this is a refrain that we have heard time and again over the past three quarters of a century, perhaps most emphatically in the months following the Vietnam War, which concluded 40 years ago this week. How often did we hear that the United States was "falling behind" the Soviet Union, or that it had no will to fight and was about to abandon its allies in Europe and Asia? If we can learn one thing from history, it is that the United States has been there before, and that it has a tendency to bounce back.

怀特的论断还有另外一个问题,那就是他认为美国和其盟友已经衰落。不可否认,华盛顿目前的确面临了很大的挑战,只是我们似乎已经持续"衰落"了四分之三个世纪,尤其是越南战争刚结束后的那几个月(话说这周就是越南战争结束40周年)。在过去,诸如"美国已经不如苏联了"或者"美国已经不想打仗了""美国就要放弃欧洲和亚洲的盟友了"之类的话我们听的还少吗?如果我们多读读历史,就会知道,美国以前也曾遇到过困难和挫折,但是,困难挫折和是压不倒美国的。

In the present scenario, we should also not discount Tokyo's ability and desire to ensure that Taiwan doesn't fall into China's hands. As a pillar of the U.S. security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Japan is unlikely to sit by idly as its next-door neighbor is taken over by China.

况且在当下,我们也不应忽略东京确保台湾不落入中国之手的能力和决心。作为美国在亚太安地区全结构的中流砥柱,日本不大可能眼巴巴的看着自己的邻居被中国占领。

Yet another flaw in White's worldview is his depiction of Beijing as an unbeatable opponent. He writes:

而怀特的世界观还有一点很荒谬,那就是他把北京描绘成了一个不可战胜等的对手,他写道:

the stark reality is that these days, there is not much the US can realistically do to help Taipei stand up to serious pressure from Beijing.
Back in 1996 when they last went toe-to-toe over Taiwan, the US could simply send a couple of aircraft carriers into the area to force China to back off. Today the balance of power is vastly different: China can sink the carriers, and their economies are so intertwined that trade sanctions of the kind the US used against Russia recently are simply unthinkable.

如今,残酷的事实却是美国几乎无法为台湾在受到来自北京的强大压力时提供多少实质性的帮助。1996年台海危机时,美国只要派几艘航空母舰过去就能喝退中国。而如今双方的力量对比已经发生了很大的变化:中国有能力击沉航空母舰,加上中美之间经济往来密切,如今美国拿经济制裁这种用来对付俄罗斯的手段来对付中国是行不通的。

He continues:
Any US effort to support Taiwan militarily against China would be almost certain to escalate into a full-scale US-China war and quite possibly a nuclear exchange. That would be a disaster for everyone, including, of course, the people of Taiwan itself—far worse than reunification, in fact.

他还说到:
美国采取任何军事手段来帮助台湾对抗中国将毫无疑问挑起中美之间的全面战争,甚至是核战。那将是所有人的灾难,当然包括台湾人自己——这种结果比统一更可怕。

Not only is this defeatism, it treats China as if it did not rely just as heavily on the world economy for its own prosperity. It also assumes that the untested Chinese military would prevail in any scenario and would even risk nuclear annihilation for the sake of seizing Taiwan, which arguably misreads the intentions (and pragmatism) of the Chinese leadership, whose main strategy is to achieve exactly what White counsels in his article—to win the war against Taiwan without a fight, to have it handed over on a silver platter.

这种思维简直就是是彻头彻尾的失败主义,说得好像中国自己的繁荣就不用靠经济似的。不仅如此,它还臆想中国那支没有经过考验的军队居然能在任何情况下都能打胜仗,居然会为了拿下台湾不惜打核战,这无疑是对中国领导层的意图的一种误读,正如怀特在其文章中所提到的,他们的主要策略就是兵不血刃地拿下台湾,让它自己将自己双手奉上。

For all its might, China isn't above the sting of sanctions or embarrassing defeats in wartime, given that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) hasn't had actual combat experience since 1979 when it ventured into Vietnam and got a bloody nose for its troubles.

尽管中国有些实力,但它并不是没有尝过制裁和战败的滋味,回想起来人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。

And while White warns that "There is a real danger that the Taiwanese overestimate the international support they can rely on if Beijing decides to get tough," he fails to mention that for its part, the international community tends to underestimate the dedication of the Taiwanese topreserve their way of life and identity.

而怀特在警告"台湾人高估了他们会在北京打算动粗时所能得到的国际支持"时却忽略了这一点,那就是国际社会也低估了台湾人保卫自己的生活方式和国家认同的决心。

The defense of Taiwan along moral lines is a perfectly sensible position to take, and as White himself seems to imply, it would be very sad indeed if this successful experiment in democratization in Asia were to fail because larger forces held different ideas regarding its future. Luckily for Taiwan, the virtues and defensibility of its democracy aren't the only arguments in its favor. In the Realists' playbook, there is every reason for making sure that Taiwan does not fall under Beijing's—and PLA—control.

从道德角度上来看保卫台湾是完全正当的,怀特本人也在试图表达这样一点,那就是在亚洲,一次成功的民主实验仅仅因为有一个更庞大的势力对其未来抱有异议就要遭受失败是一件令人痛心的事。不过幸运的是,对于台湾而言,民主所带来的吸引力和生命力并不是它手中唯一的筹码。从现实的角度来看,台湾不会落入北京和解放军的控制的理由还有很多。

J. Michael Cole, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is editor in chief of www.thinking-taiwan.com, a senior non-resident fellow at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, and an Associate researcher at the French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC) in Taipei.

J·迈克尔·科尔,前加拿大安全情报局分析师,www.thinking-taiwan.com网站总编,诺丁汉大学中国政策研究所非常驻研究员,台北法国当代中国研究中心副研究员。
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/16464.html
看热闹的不嫌事大
展现一下1000千克级的炸弹投掷画面吧
以前看过一部架空小说叫“龙咒”;里面美日入侵中国,大量使用临界武器,好像叫“伽马弹”;打的中国措手不及!
只有敢于使用核武器的国家才会相信对方不会使用核武器,因为核武器的威慑在于使用的决心,连使用决心都没有的国家,有核武器和没有核武器没有什么区别。我相信美国在关键时刻会对中国使用核武器,但不会有决心在台湾问题上对中国使用核武器,因为台湾问题不是美国的核心问题但是是中国的核心问题,中国有决心,气势就强,中国的气势强,美国的气势就弱。就像62年的古巴,苏联看似强硬,但只要美国露出决不干休的决心,苏联马上就妥协了。
justmewhd 发表于 2015-5-1 23:53
展现一下1000千克级的炸弹投掷画面吧
有一部叫“龙咒”的架空小说;里面美日入侵中国,大量使用临界武器,好像叫“伽马弹”。
gaohuaide 发表于 2015-5-2 00:06
有一部叫“龙咒”的架空小说;里面美日入侵中国,大量使用临界武器,好像叫“伽马弹”。
兵工科技上介绍过第四代核武器,我们要是能开发出来就好了。
“人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。”

O_O艾玛
justmewhd 发表于 2015-5-2 00:08
兵工科技上介绍过第四代核武器,我们要是能开发出来就好了。
好像不受《全面禁止核试验条约》的限制,也没有污染。
wangwang623 发表于 2015-5-2 00:04
只有敢于使用核武器的国家才会相信对方不会使用核武器,因为核武器的威慑在于使用的决心,连使用决心都没有 ...
有一部叫“龙咒”的架空小说;里面美日入侵中国,大量使用临界武器,好像叫“伽马弹”。不受《全面禁止核试验条约》的限制,也没有污染。
eva里还有n2爆雷呢
作者似乎忘记了,只有战胜者才有资格谈论民主、正义的道德。
曼哈顿工程 发表于 2015-5-2 00:16
作者似乎忘记了,只有战胜者才有资格谈论民主、正义的道德。
文章就是说中国是纸老虎
白沙瓦牧羊人 发表于 2015-5-2 00:14
eva里还有n2爆雷呢
保不准美国已经有不受《全面禁止核试验条约》的限制的临界武器。不得不防。
gaohuaide 发表于 2015-5-2 00:25
文章就是说中国是纸老虎
作者担心纸老虎收WW的时候,没人敢帮WW。担心WW成了捷克。
gaohuaide 发表于 2015-5-2 00:11
有一部叫“龙咒”的架空小说;里面美日入侵中国,大量使用临界武器,好像叫“伽马弹”。不受《全面禁止核 ...
你把条约看得太重了,像中美这种大国,如果到了使用临界武器的时候,那就是全面战争了,那时候是不会考虑什么武器条约的。否则,那就是受控的、有限度的战争,甚至连战争的程度都没到,只是军事上的对峙,双方各出自己的底牌,不断加码,直到有一方妥协,然后重新制定政治格局以及划分势力范围。
兵工科技上介绍过第四代核武器,我们要是能开发出来就好了。
还不知道下一代核武器什么原理呢
justmewhd 发表于 2015-5-2 00:08
兵工科技上介绍过第四代核武器,我们要是能开发出来就好了。
四代核要是出来可牛大发了,单兵核武,一个班的火力赶上一个师了
各国不一直在做么,就是谁都没做出来
现在发展到第几代核武器了?
澳大利亚和加拿大看起来都很有主动挑战中国的精神!
反物质火炮可否一试?
多大杀伤力是在大规模杀伤武器之下?
还有谁记得“龙咒”?
兵工科技上介绍过第四代核武器,我们要是能开发出来就好了。
第四代核武器,好像是有金属氢、核同质异能素吧,对这两个印象比较深。
临界武器?
第四代核武器,好像是有金属氢、核同质异能素吧,对这两个印象比较深。
这两个一个是半个硬科幻,一个是软科幻,根本作不得数
猎杀m1a2 发表于 2015-5-3 00:41
临界武器?
没准美国已经秘密装备了
gaohuaide 发表于 2015-5-2 00:06
有一部叫“龙咒”的架空小说;里面美日入侵中国,大量使用临界武器,好像叫“伽马弹”。
其实和中子弹一样属于剪裁效应核武器,只不过强调伽马射线而已
质子撞击炮,真空内爆弹
justmewhd 发表于 2015-5-2 00:08
兵工科技上介绍过第四代核武器,我们要是能开发出来就好了。
4代核武是EMP?
N2炸弹
宏聚变
二向箔
来自:关于超级大本营
来自:关于超级大本营
这两个一个是半个硬科幻,一个是软科幻,根本作不得数
是挺悬的,但不算是科幻吧,我记得还是在比较正式的书上看的。
4代核武是EMP?
咋能是EMP,EMP原理上跟氢弹一样,于中子弹同属三代。
反物质武器有可能研究出来吗?把美国弄没了那画面我意淫了好久!
中国是收回属于自己的东西,不是在扩张
质量爆散算吗?
关键是威力差了几个数量级,如果非要搞这些武器,最后还是绕不开核能