美国军事最可怕的噩梦:与中俄(同时)开战

2016-08-28  janwoo  14219  27  1
译文简介
美国在上个十年的后期放弃了其经常被误解的"两场战争"学说，该学说为同时进行两场地区战争提供了模式范例。这个学说是美国为与诸如在向伊朗或者伊拉克开战时防止朝鲜同时发动战争（反之也如是）而设计的，冷战后美国不再需要面对苏联的威胁，国防部的采购、后勤与战略基础均基于这个想法。美国因为国际体系的变化而放弃了这个学说，这些变化包括中国之崛起和高效的恐怖网络之蔓延。
译文来源
原文地址：http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-militarys-worst-nightmare-war-russia-china-the-same-time-17490
正文翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：janwoo 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-410056-1-1.html

US Military's Worst Nightmare: A War with Russia and China (at the SameTime)

美国军事最可怕的噩梦:与俄中(同时)开战

Robert Farley
August 26, 2016

2016年8月26日



Image: A B-1B Lancer soars over the Pacific Ocean as it maneuvers infor aerial refueling by a KC-135 Stratotanker on September 30, 2005. WikimediaCommons/U.S. Air Force

配图：一架B-1B枪骑兵翱翔在太平洋上空，准备与一架KC-135同温层加油机进行空中加油，时间是2005年9月30日。来自维基百科/美国空军

The United States discardedits oft-misunderstood “two war” doctrine, intended as a template for providingthe means to fight two regional wars simultaneously, late last decade. Designedto deter North Korea from launching a war while the United States was involvedin fighting against Iran or Iraq (or vice versa,) the idea helped give form tothe Department of Defense’s procurement, logistical and basing strategies inthe post–Cold War, when the United States no longer needed to face down theSoviet threat. The United States backed away from the doctrine because ofchanges in the international system, including the rising power of China andthe proliferation of highly effective terrorist networks.
But what if the United Stateshad to fight two wars today, and notagainst states like North Korea and Iran?What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage insimultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?

美国在上个十年的后期放弃了其经常被误解的"两场战争"学说，该学说为同时进行两场地区战争提供了模式范例。这个学说是美国为与诸如在向伊朗或者伊拉克开战时防止朝鲜同时发动战争（反之也如是）而设计的，冷战后美国不再需要面对苏联的威胁，国防部的采购、后勤与战略基础均基于这个想法。美国因为国际体系的变化而放弃了这个学说，这些变化包括中国之崛起和高效的恐怖网络之蔓延。

Political Coordination

政治协作

ltaaaTxt

Flexibility

灵活性

On the upside, only some ofthe requirements for fighting in Europe and the Pacific overlap. As was thecase in World War II, the U.S. Army would bear the brunt of defending Europe,while the Navy would concentrate on the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force (USAF)would play a supporting role in both theaters.

好的一面是，欧洲与太平洋方向的作战需求只有有限的重合点。正如二战那样，美国陆军的主战场是欧洲，而海军的主要方向是太平洋。美国空军在两个方向上提供支援。远程战机，包括隐形轰炸机及类似资产，将会根据需要在两个方向上使用。

Russia lacks the ability tofight NATO in the North Atlantic, and probably has no political interest intrying. This means that while the United States and its NATO allies canallocate some resources to threatening Russia’s maritime space (and providinginsurance against a Russian naval sortie,) the U.S.Navy (USN) can concentrate its forces in the Pacific.Depending on the length of the conflict and the degree of warning provided, theUnited States could transport considerable U.S. Army assets to Europe to assistwith any serious fighting.

俄罗斯无力在北大西洋与北约作战，很大可能也无此政治意愿。这意味着美国及其北约盟国可以调配部分资源威慑俄罗斯海域（防止俄方海上袭扰），美国海军可以将大部分军力集中在太平洋方向。取决于冲突的长短及威胁的程度，美国可以将可观的陆军资产转移到欧洲以应对任何大战。

The bulk of Americancarriers, submarines and surface vessels would concentrate in the Pacific andthe Indian Oceans, fightingdirectly against China’s A2/AD system and sitting astride China’s maritimetransit lanes. Long range aviation, includingstealth bombers and similar assets, would operate in both theaters as needed.

美国航母、潜艇及水面舰艇的主力将会集中在太平洋与印度洋，直接攻击中国的A2/AD反介入和区域封锁武器系统，扼守中国的海上运输通道。

The U.S. military would beunder strong pressure to deliver decisive victory in at least one theater asquickly as possible. This might push the United States to lean heavily in onedirection with air, space and cyber assets, hoping to achieve a strategic andpolitical victory that would allow the remainder of its weight to shift to theother theater. Given the strength of U.S. allies in Europe, the United Statesmight initially focus on the conflict in the Pacific.

美国军方将会迫切需要在其中至少一个方向上尽快取得决定性的胜利。这将迫使美国将大部分的空中、太空及网络资产投入其中一个方向，以便在获得战略性和政治上的胜利后，将中心转移到另外一个方向上。由于美国欧洲盟友力量强大，美国可能会首先聚焦于太平洋上。

Alliance Structure

盟国构成

U.S. alliance structure inthe Pacific differs dramatically from that of Europe. Notwithstanding concernover the commitment of specific U.S. allies in Europe, the United States has noreason to fight Russia apart from maintaining the integrity of the NATOalliance. If the United States fights, then Germany, France, Poland and theUnited Kingdom will follow. In most conventional scenarios, even the Europeanallies alone would give NATO a tremendous medium term advantage over theRussians; Russia might take parts of the Baltics, but it would suffer heavilyunder NATO airpower, and likely couldn’t hold stolen territory for long. Inthis context, the USN and USAF would largely play support and coordinativeroles, giving the NATO allies the advantage they needed to soundly defeat theRussians. The U.S. nuclear force would provide insurance against a Russiandecision to employ tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

美国在亚太的盟友与欧洲区别甚大。尽管对某些欧洲盟国的承诺有些担心，美国没理由会因为维护北约盟友的完整而孤独作战。美国打起来，德国、法国、波兰及英国都会跟上。对于大部分的场景而言，甚至欧洲盟友就能够独自给予北约对俄罗斯极大的中期优势；俄方可能会攫取部分波罗的海国家领土，但它将在北约的空中打击下损失惨重，长远而言很可能守不住那些盗取来的土地。在这种情形下，美国海空军将会主要扮演支援及协调角色，增加北约的优势、从而完胜俄罗斯。美国的核力量将会用于阻止俄罗斯使用战术及战略核武器。

ltaaaTxt

RobertFarley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author ofThe Battleship Book. He serves as a senior lecturer at the Patterson School ofDiplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His workincludes military doctrine, national security and maritime affairs. He blogs atLawyers, Guns and Money,Information Disseminationand theDiplomat.

RobertFarley，经常为National Interest撰文，是The Battleship Book一书的作者。他还是肯塔基大学帕特森外交与国际商务学院的高级讲师。著作涵括军事学说、国家安全和海事等方面。在Lawyers, Guns and Money,Information Dissemination及 theDiplomat这三个网站上均有博客。

http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/20393.html2016-08-28  janwoo  14219  27  1
译文简介
美国在上个十年的后期放弃了其经常被误解的"两场战争"学说，该学说为同时进行两场地区战争提供了模式范例。这个学说是美国为与诸如在向伊朗或者伊拉克开战时防止朝鲜同时发动战争（反之也如是）而设计的，冷战后美国不再需要面对苏联的威胁，国防部的采购、后勤与战略基础均基于这个想法。美国因为国际体系的变化而放弃了这个学说，这些变化包括中国之崛起和高效的恐怖网络之蔓延。
译文来源
原文地址：http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-militarys-worst-nightmare-war-russia-china-the-same-time-17490
正文翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：janwoo 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-410056-1-1.html

US Military's Worst Nightmare: A War with Russia and China (at the SameTime)

美国军事最可怕的噩梦:与俄中(同时)开战

Robert Farley
August 26, 2016

2016年8月26日



Image: A B-1B Lancer soars over the Pacific Ocean as it maneuvers infor aerial refueling by a KC-135 Stratotanker on September 30, 2005. WikimediaCommons/U.S. Air Force

配图：一架B-1B枪骑兵翱翔在太平洋上空，准备与一架KC-135同温层加油机进行空中加油，时间是2005年9月30日。来自维基百科/美国空军

The United States discardedits oft-misunderstood “two war” doctrine, intended as a template for providingthe means to fight two regional wars simultaneously, late last decade. Designedto deter North Korea from launching a war while the United States was involvedin fighting against Iran or Iraq (or vice versa,) the idea helped give form tothe Department of Defense’s procurement, logistical and basing strategies inthe post–Cold War, when the United States no longer needed to face down theSoviet threat. The United States backed away from the doctrine because ofchanges in the international system, including the rising power of China andthe proliferation of highly effective terrorist networks.
But what if the United Stateshad to fight two wars today, and notagainst states like North Korea and Iran?What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage insimultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?

美国在上个十年的后期放弃了其经常被误解的"两场战争"学说，该学说为同时进行两场地区战争提供了模式范例。这个学说是美国为与诸如在向伊朗或者伊拉克开战时防止朝鲜同时发动战争（反之也如是）而设计的，冷战后美国不再需要面对苏联的威胁，国防部的采购、后勤与战略基础均基于这个想法。美国因为国际体系的变化而放弃了这个学说，这些变化包括中国之崛起和高效的恐怖网络之蔓延。

Political Coordination

政治协作

ltaaaTxt

Flexibility

灵活性

On the upside, only some ofthe requirements for fighting in Europe and the Pacific overlap. As was thecase in World War II, the U.S. Army would bear the brunt of defending Europe,while the Navy would concentrate on the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force (USAF)would play a supporting role in both theaters.

好的一面是，欧洲与太平洋方向的作战需求只有有限的重合点。正如二战那样，美国陆军的主战场是欧洲，而海军的主要方向是太平洋。美国空军在两个方向上提供支援。远程战机，包括隐形轰炸机及类似资产，将会根据需要在两个方向上使用。

Russia lacks the ability tofight NATO in the North Atlantic, and probably has no political interest intrying. This means that while the United States and its NATO allies canallocate some resources to threatening Russia’s maritime space (and providinginsurance against a Russian naval sortie,) the U.S.Navy (USN) can concentrate its forces in the Pacific.Depending on the length of the conflict and the degree of warning provided, theUnited States could transport considerable U.S. Army assets to Europe to assistwith any serious fighting.

俄罗斯无力在北大西洋与北约作战，很大可能也无此政治意愿。这意味着美国及其北约盟国可以调配部分资源威慑俄罗斯海域（防止俄方海上袭扰），美国海军可以将大部分军力集中在太平洋方向。取决于冲突的长短及威胁的程度，美国可以将可观的陆军资产转移到欧洲以应对任何大战。

The bulk of Americancarriers, submarines and surface vessels would concentrate in the Pacific andthe Indian Oceans, fightingdirectly against China’s A2/AD system and sitting astride China’s maritimetransit lanes. Long range aviation, includingstealth bombers and similar assets, would operate in both theaters as needed.

美国航母、潜艇及水面舰艇的主力将会集中在太平洋与印度洋，直接攻击中国的A2/AD反介入和区域封锁武器系统，扼守中国的海上运输通道。

The U.S. military would beunder strong pressure to deliver decisive victory in at least one theater asquickly as possible. This might push the United States to lean heavily in onedirection with air, space and cyber assets, hoping to achieve a strategic andpolitical victory that would allow the remainder of its weight to shift to theother theater. Given the strength of U.S. allies in Europe, the United Statesmight initially focus on the conflict in the Pacific.

美国军方将会迫切需要在其中至少一个方向上尽快取得决定性的胜利。这将迫使美国将大部分的空中、太空及网络资产投入其中一个方向，以便在获得战略性和政治上的胜利后，将中心转移到另外一个方向上。由于美国欧洲盟友力量强大，美国可能会首先聚焦于太平洋上。

Alliance Structure

盟国构成

U.S. alliance structure inthe Pacific differs dramatically from that of Europe. Notwithstanding concernover the commitment of specific U.S. allies in Europe, the United States has noreason to fight Russia apart from maintaining the integrity of the NATOalliance. If the United States fights, then Germany, France, Poland and theUnited Kingdom will follow. In most conventional scenarios, even the Europeanallies alone would give NATO a tremendous medium term advantage over theRussians; Russia might take parts of the Baltics, but it would suffer heavilyunder NATO airpower, and likely couldn’t hold stolen territory for long. Inthis context, the USN and USAF would largely play support and coordinativeroles, giving the NATO allies the advantage they needed to soundly defeat theRussians. The U.S. nuclear force would provide insurance against a Russiandecision to employ tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

美国在亚太的盟友与欧洲区别甚大。尽管对某些欧洲盟国的承诺有些担心，美国没理由会因为维护北约盟友的完整而孤独作战。美国打起来，德国、法国、波兰及英国都会跟上。对于大部分的场景而言，甚至欧洲盟友就能够独自给予北约对俄罗斯极大的中期优势；俄方可能会攫取部分波罗的海国家领土，但它将在北约的空中打击下损失惨重，长远而言很可能守不住那些盗取来的土地。在这种情形下，美国海空军将会主要扮演支援及协调角色，增加北约的优势、从而完胜俄罗斯。美国的核力量将会用于阻止俄罗斯使用战术及战略核武器。

ltaaaTxt

RobertFarley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author ofThe Battleship Book. He serves as a senior lecturer at the Patterson School ofDiplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His workincludes military doctrine, national security and maritime affairs. He blogs atLawyers, Guns and Money,Information Disseminationand theDiplomat.

RobertFarley，经常为National Interest撰文，是The Battleship Book一书的作者。他还是肯塔基大学帕特森外交与国际商务学院的高级讲师。著作涵括军事学说、国家安全和海事等方面。在Lawyers, Guns and Money,Information Dissemination及 theDiplomat这三个网站上均有博客。

http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/20393.html