超级军网[最新转贴]来自美国华尔街日报网站的最新评论（显示西方 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 02:58:46
转自爬山虎翻译网站。看看财经媒体读者的评论又是怎样的。另外对比一下华尔街中文网和英文网的不同评论会是一件有趣的事。
华尔街中文网有原文翻译，这里只贴个链接就算了：
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/bch153240.asp?source=NewSearch
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/BCH194310.asp?source=NewSearch
下面是英文网的评论：
Richard Gould wrote:
Good thing we capped production of the F-22 and decided to rely on the less capable Lockheed F-35 to deter China...
好啊，我们限量生产F22并决定指望洛克希德性能较差的F35来抵御中国…
michael nussbaum replied:
Wouldn't it be patriotic if Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg took abut $5 billion from their foundations and dedicated it to the continued production of the F-22. Charity begins at home, and that is an earmark I could live with.
如果盖茨、巴菲特和彭博从他们的慈善基金那里拿出大约50亿美金来继续生产F22，这不是一个爱国行为吗？慈善要首先从国内开始，这笔钱我可以用到哦。
MICHAEL FRISCH wrote:
I am completely lost. Why are we being subjected to repeat info about this plane?
China has atomic bombs. There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button.
我整个人都失落了。为什么我们要不断贴这架飞机的消息啊？
中国有蛋蛋，大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。
Sammy Leung replied:
The problem is US will not pick a fight with any country that have nukes, the J20 is not really an issue at China's hand. But say if one of the US little rivals have it, it would make US think twice before starting a war with them.
这只是因为美国不想和有核国家开战，所以J20在中国手上才不是一个问题。如果是与美国敌对的一个小国拥有J20，美国就会好好考虑是否与它们开战了。
Kirk Linn replied:
You don't have to pick a fight to defeat your enemies, witness the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. You tell me which way the dominoes fell Sammy. (your probably too young to understand that analogy)
你不需要用战争来打败你的敌人，看看前苏联和东方集团，你告诉我这个多米诺骨牌是以哪种方式倒下的。（你可能年纪太小了，看不懂我这个比喻）。
James Drouin replied:
Michael - Keep your night job flipping burgers because as a forecaster of future events you clearly have serious limitations.
Perhaps you might want to look at who supplied the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc, before you expose that enormous gap in your knowlege base about the US not having to face Communist weapons.
Michael，你就继续晚上翻你的汉堡吧*，作为一个对未来事件的预测者，你明显能力严重有限。
竟然认为美国不需要面对共产党的武器，在你暴露出你巨大的无知前，或者你要看看谁在支持朝鲜、北越、利比亚、伊拉克、伊朗等等国家，
*：快餐店里不需要技术的简单体力活,工资又低,所以被人视为低贱的工作。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
James, a person who thinks that China "has never" been our friend doesn't have any business denigrating others' ability to "forecast." When you don't even know the past, how can you possibly know the future?
James，一个认为中国“从来没”当过我们的朋友的人，没资格贬低其他人的“预测”能力。当你连过去都不知道时，你怎么可能会知道将来呢？
Justin Murray replied:
China may have the bomb, but they don't have a reliable delivery mechanism to use it on anyone outside their immediate region
中国可能有蛋蛋，但他们没有一个可依赖的武力投送系统来把它用在他们领土外的任何人身上。
Sammy Leung replied:
Try thinking this scenario. A Chinese sub went undetected in the middle of a Navy exercise.
New York and California would be a big risk even for mid-short range nuke.
想想这个情景。一条中国潜艇神不知鬼不觉地混进了美军的一场海军演习当中。
即便是中短航程的蛋蛋，也是纽约和加州的一个巨大威胁。
Kirk Linn replied:
Sammy,
How can you be so sure that they didn't let the Chinese think they fooled them? After all what could be more effective than letting your enemy think you don't know where they are when you really do want to blow them out of the water?
I am perfectly content to let the Chinese get full of themselves, they are good at that, just before they fall on their collective faces.
Don't think the U.S. is just standing by Sammy, even with the current administration.
Sammy，
你能肯定这不是美军故意让中国人认为他们戏耍了美军吗？毕竟，还有什么比让你的敌人以为你不知道他们在何处，而事实上你正想把他们轰出水面更有效的战略呢？
我对让中国人自骄自满完全没意见，他们总是很容易这样，在他们最终集体跌倒之前。
不要以为美国对于当前的情况就只是在旁边看着而已，Sammy。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
So Kirk, suppose we get into a war with China in China. Are you going to be taking up arms to fight the PLA? Or are you going to be an armchair quarterback, drinking a PBR and cheering each Fox News report?
所以，Kirk，假设我们现在在中国和中国打仗。你会拿上你的武器去和PLA战吗？还是坐在扶手椅里指点江山，喝着一瓶PBR公司的酒，为每条FOX的新闻报道喝彩？
RICK BARAN replied:
mmm not reliable delivery system, since 1967 modified JL2 can now deliver upto 10K miles, you ignorante
唔唔，没有有效的武力投送系统，自1967年始，JL2的改良版就能发射至1万英里以外，你真无知。
Tony Carlos replied:
If our navy seriously can't detect a diesel/electric sub in it's midst, we may as well just hand the Chinese the keys right now.
如果我们的海军真的在演习的时候探测不出一条柴油电动潜艇，我们现在等于是把家门口的钥匙递给了中国人。
Darragh Scully replied:
Then again neither side is that stupid.
所以再一次，两边都不是这么蠢的。
Chris Georgandellis replied:
Those who believe that the atom bomb has stopped conventional warfare obviously stopped studying the history of war subsequent to August, 1945.
那些认为蛋蛋防止了常规战争的人明显没研究过1945年8月之后的战争史。
Jaydeep Dave replied:
Who is worried about use of such aircrafts ? Currently US is the major beneficiary of conflicts between nations by selling weapons (read high end products that sustain high standard of living) to both sides. Now China would compete on that front too...e.g. Clean Energy Technology, High Speed Rails, Commercial and Military aircrafts ....not to mention zoo zoo toys :)
谁在担忧这样的飞机的用途呢？目前美国是国家之间冲突的主要受益人，因为它可以向冲突双方销售武器（这里的武器是指维持美国高标准生活的高端货）。现在中国也会在这条战线和美国竞争，除了在清洁能源技术、高铁、商用和军用飞机等战线之外，更不用说中国的猪猪玩具了* ：）
*：2009年12月12日，从感恩节至圣诞节的购物季，美国最热销的玩具是什么？是一款名叫“猪猪”（Zhuzhu）的电子仓鼠。
Karl Wright replied:
"There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button"
Nonsense.
The question is whether China is willing to call our bluff. While it may be true that the U.S. nuclear umbrella extends to Taiwan, we've never said we'll use nukes if Taiwan is invaded. And we probably wouldn't. So the strategy in China is simply to make sure that they prevail in a conventional conflict over Taiwan. And then, they will likely go ahead.
I think China is quite close to the point where they think they would prevail.
“大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。”
问题是中国是否想要我们摊牌。虽然可能美国的核保护伞范围真的包括了台湾，但我们从没说过如果台湾被入侵了我们会使用蛋蛋。而且我们很可能不会这样做。所以对中国的战略很简单，只要确保他们和台湾的摩擦维持在常规战争的水平就够了。这样的话，他们很可能就真的不会用蛋蛋。
我认为中国非常接近于认为他们在台海冲突中不会用到蛋蛋。
Joe Johnston wrote:
Yawwwwnnn...is Fox news going to drag out the ex fighter pilot cum options trader to issue another one of his "terrifying" reports about how...
哈~~唔，FOX新闻是不是正准备拉个前战斗机驾驶员兼现在的期权交易员来发他另一篇关于中国如何如何的“吓人”报道…
James Drouin replied:
Joe - Nope, instead they're going to help insure that 'you people' don't spend America into bankruptcy.
Perhaps you heard the message patriotic Americans sent 'you people' on November 2nd. Or, are memory problems an integral part of your group's requirements???
Joe，不，相反，他们正准备使人们相信“你们这些人”没有败光美国的家底，让美国破产。
可能你收到了那条爱国的美国人在11月2日发给“你们这些人”的信息。或者，失忆是你们这群人的一个必要的组成部分？
Tony Carlos replied:
Fox needn't worry about bankruptcy. Their largest non-family invester is an Arab prince.
FOX无需担心美国破产。他们最大的非家族投资者是一个阿拉伯王子。
Rob Ruff replied:
You really are ignorant if you think the Republicans did not spend this nation into bankruptcy right along with the Democrats. People who support EITHER party are just pawns in the game.
你真无知的可以，如果你认为共和党不会跟着民主党的路败光美国的家底。支持哪一边的人都只是你主子在游戏里面的卒子而已。
Martin Chen wrote:
Congratulation from USA.Long live , my dear homeland .Long live China .Lone live Chinese .Long live ,world peace!
美利坚合众国发来贺电。我亲爱的祖国万岁。中国万岁。中国人万岁。世界和平万岁！
JERRY MORIARTY replied:
I'm rooting for you guys now,since our own sold us out.Go China!
现在我也跟你们混了兄弟，因为我们原来跟那个把我们卖了。中国go go go！
Brendon Kerr wrote:
Me and my family have stopped buying as many Chinese products as possible, this is the main reason, because their technology is closing in on ours. Down in the South Pacific China is starting to shadow over us. So I am not supporting any Chinese made products if possible, sometimes there is no choice, but things like Apple, DELL and other Chinese products I will no longer support. Maybe designed in the US but mostly built in China. Corporations and gov are mostly to blame. For the US citizens it may not mean much to see such a plane but in the South pacific where New Zealand and Australia have small populations its a big threat. The only problem is, NZ sells a lot of dairy products to China now and Australia exports a lot of resources, if we had manufacturing we would not depend on this so much, thanks to our gov's who support a dictatorship. Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too? better yet, why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore. I guess first they get it produced cheap, that country gets strong and becomes a threat, our people that have lost jobs to manufacturing over here have nothing, through desperation they join to the military to get paid, the rich sit back while the poor fight the war that they created. No wonder you have people in the US shooting people in congress these days.
我和我家人已经尽可能不再购买中国的商品了，这主要是因为他们的技术正接近我们的水平。在南太平洋中国开始向我们投下它的身影。所以有可能的话我不会再支持任何中国产的商品，有时你没有选择，但像苹果、戴尔这样的东东和其他的中国商品，我不会再去支持了。它们可能是在美国设计的，但主要还是在中国制造。公司和政府是要责备最多的。对美国公民来说这样的一架飞机或者不会意味太多，但在南太平洋人口稀少的新西兰和澳大利亚，它是一个巨大的威胁。现在的问题是，新西兰卖了很多奶制品给中国，而澳大利亚出口了很多资源。如果我们有自己的制造业，我们不会如此依赖于中国。多谢我们的政府，它支持了一个专制国家。考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？最好的是，为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？我第一反应是他们让产品便宜下来了，然后外包的国家变强大了，构成威胁，我们那些失去了制造业的就业机会的人一无所有，绝望之下加入了军队，为了获得报酬，富人坐在后面看戏而穷人为他们制造出来的战争而战。难怪你们美国佬这几天在议会枪击议员。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too?"
Finally, someone in these forums who doesn't reflexively buy the "put a tariff on Chinese imports and U.S. manufacturing will come back."
“考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？”
终于在一个财经论坛里面找到一个人没有条件反射地认为“对中国进口征收关税，然后美国的制造业就会回来了。”
Sammy Leung replied:
Vietnam is a huge bubble, no one want to take the chance.
Labor is one thing, but it will take years to build the infrastructure to support the industry. China started in the 80's, it will take a decade or so for other countries to catch up. Assuming they have the resource to do it.
越南是个大泡沫，没人想去试水。
劳动力是其中一个因素，但要花好几年来进行基建以支持整个行业。中国在80年代就开始搞基建，其他国家要花十年左右的时间来追上中国。假定他们有搞基建的资源。
michael nussbaum replied:
Interesting argument, Brendon. I 've thought of Australia a lot in the past few months as our influence is waning under the current administration. Wish you hadn't written the last two sentences, though. The second to last is cliche'ist, while the last is inexcusable. We just had an election, and we will have another in less than two years. There is much we can do between now and then as you and your family are doing ,and you are far from alone in these efforts. Avoid, if you can, an appeal to convenient bogeymen, and DO NOT use that last sentence again, it will ruin any prior analysis as welll as any good work on your part.
有趣的观点，Brendon。在过去的几个月关于澳大利亚我想了很多，因为在当前美国对该地区的管理当中，我们的影响正逐渐式微。但我还是希望你没有写下最后两个句子。倒数第二个句子被说烂了，而最后一个不能构成一个理由。不到两年的时间我们就要进行一次选举。从现在开始我们可以做很多事情，就像你和你的家人在做的那样，你在你的行动当中绝对不会感到孤独。可以的话不要夹带私货，不要再用最后那个句子，它会让前面的分析和你对的地方也毁于一旦。
Mingham Liu replied:
it makes no sense that you declined to buy any Chinese product, cause even some of your dollars are belong to China,since China has bought large amounts of American national debt. "why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore", your comments only show your illiteracy of economics, let me tell you why, your country are not willing to manufacture inside, otherwise, you people and enterprises will make fewer profits, which means you will be poorer. I insist that you spend some time on a research of the iPhone export from China to USA from UC Irvine,you guys make a profit over a hundred dollars while Chinese workers just receive less than 10, so , there you know why you cannot avoid "made in China", next time when you decide to decline to buy any product from any country, please do some economic research, not just in a naive way! May your god bless you!
你减少购买中国货没有任何意义，因为甚至你手中的一些美元也是属于中国的，看看中国已经购买了庞大的美国国债。“为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？”你的回复只显示出你是个经济盲，让我告诉你为什么，你的国家不想在自家搞制造业，否则你的国民和企业将会赚取更少的利润，这意味着你将变得更贫穷。我劝告你花些时间来读读加州大学欧文分校对中国出口iPhone到美国的研究，每台iPhone你们这些人拿走了超过100美元的利润，而中国的工人拿到的少于10美元。所以，从这个例子你明白为什么你不能避开“中国制造”，下次你决定减少购买某个国家的产品时，请做些经济研究，不要天真地想当然！上帝保佑你！转自爬山虎翻译网站。看看财经媒体读者的评论又是怎样的。另外对比一下华尔街中文网和英文网的不同评论会是一件有趣的事。
华尔街中文网有原文翻译，这里只贴个链接就算了：
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/bch153240.asp?source=NewSearch
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/BCH194310.asp?source=NewSearch
下面是英文网的评论：
Richard Gould wrote:
Good thing we capped production of the F-22 and decided to rely on the less capable Lockheed F-35 to deter China...
好啊，我们限量生产F22并决定指望洛克希德性能较差的F35来抵御中国…
michael nussbaum replied:
Wouldn't it be patriotic if Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg took abut $5 billion from their foundations and dedicated it to the continued production of the F-22. Charity begins at home, and that is an earmark I could live with.
如果盖茨、巴菲特和彭博从他们的慈善基金那里拿出大约50亿美金来继续生产F22，这不是一个爱国行为吗？慈善要首先从国内开始，这笔钱我可以用到哦。
MICHAEL FRISCH wrote:
I am completely lost. Why are we being subjected to repeat info about this plane?
China has atomic bombs. There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button.
我整个人都失落了。为什么我们要不断贴这架飞机的消息啊？
中国有蛋蛋，大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。
Sammy Leung replied:
The problem is US will not pick a fight with any country that have nukes, the J20 is not really an issue at China's hand. But say if one of the US little rivals have it, it would make US think twice before starting a war with them.
这只是因为美国不想和有核国家开战，所以J20在中国手上才不是一个问题。如果是与美国敌对的一个小国拥有J20，美国就会好好考虑是否与它们开战了。
Kirk Linn replied:
You don't have to pick a fight to defeat your enemies, witness the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. You tell me which way the dominoes fell Sammy. (your probably too young to understand that analogy)
你不需要用战争来打败你的敌人，看看前苏联和东方集团，你告诉我这个多米诺骨牌是以哪种方式倒下的。（你可能年纪太小了，看不懂我这个比喻）。
James Drouin replied:
Michael - Keep your night job flipping burgers because as a forecaster of future events you clearly have serious limitations.
Perhaps you might want to look at who supplied the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc, before you expose that enormous gap in your knowlege base about the US not having to face Communist weapons.
Michael，你就继续晚上翻你的汉堡吧*，作为一个对未来事件的预测者，你明显能力严重有限。
竟然认为美国不需要面对共产党的武器，在你暴露出你巨大的无知前，或者你要看看谁在支持朝鲜、北越、利比亚、伊拉克、伊朗等等国家，
*：快餐店里不需要技术的简单体力活,工资又低,所以被人视为低贱的工作。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
James, a person who thinks that China "has never" been our friend doesn't have any business denigrating others' ability to "forecast." When you don't even know the past, how can you possibly know the future?
James，一个认为中国“从来没”当过我们的朋友的人，没资格贬低其他人的“预测”能力。当你连过去都不知道时，你怎么可能会知道将来呢？
Justin Murray replied:
China may have the bomb, but they don't have a reliable delivery mechanism to use it on anyone outside their immediate region
中国可能有蛋蛋，但他们没有一个可依赖的武力投送系统来把它用在他们领土外的任何人身上。
Sammy Leung replied:
Try thinking this scenario. A Chinese sub went undetected in the middle of a Navy exercise.
New York and California would be a big risk even for mid-short range nuke.
想想这个情景。一条中国潜艇神不知鬼不觉地混进了美军的一场海军演习当中。
即便是中短航程的蛋蛋，也是纽约和加州的一个巨大威胁。
Kirk Linn replied:
Sammy,
How can you be so sure that they didn't let the Chinese think they fooled them? After all what could be more effective than letting your enemy think you don't know where they are when you really do want to blow them out of the water?
I am perfectly content to let the Chinese get full of themselves, they are good at that, just before they fall on their collective faces.
Don't think the U.S. is just standing by Sammy, even with the current administration.
Sammy，
你能肯定这不是美军故意让中国人认为他们戏耍了美军吗？毕竟，还有什么比让你的敌人以为你不知道他们在何处，而事实上你正想把他们轰出水面更有效的战略呢？
我对让中国人自骄自满完全没意见，他们总是很容易这样，在他们最终集体跌倒之前。
不要以为美国对于当前的情况就只是在旁边看着而已，Sammy。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
So Kirk, suppose we get into a war with China in China. Are you going to be taking up arms to fight the PLA? Or are you going to be an armchair quarterback, drinking a PBR and cheering each Fox News report?
所以，Kirk，假设我们现在在中国和中国打仗。你会拿上你的武器去和PLA战吗？还是坐在扶手椅里指点江山，喝着一瓶PBR公司的酒，为每条FOX的新闻报道喝彩？
RICK BARAN replied:
mmm not reliable delivery system, since 1967 modified JL2 can now deliver upto 10K miles, you ignorante
唔唔，没有有效的武力投送系统，自1967年始，JL2的改良版就能发射至1万英里以外，你真无知。
Tony Carlos replied:
If our navy seriously can't detect a diesel/electric sub in it's midst, we may as well just hand the Chinese the keys right now.
如果我们的海军真的在演习的时候探测不出一条柴油电动潜艇，我们现在等于是把家门口的钥匙递给了中国人。
Darragh Scully replied:
Then again neither side is that stupid.
所以再一次，两边都不是这么蠢的。
Chris Georgandellis replied:
Those who believe that the atom bomb has stopped conventional warfare obviously stopped studying the history of war subsequent to August, 1945.
那些认为蛋蛋防止了常规战争的人明显没研究过1945年8月之后的战争史。
Jaydeep Dave replied:
Who is worried about use of such aircrafts ? Currently US is the major beneficiary of conflicts between nations by selling weapons (read high end products that sustain high standard of living) to both sides. Now China would compete on that front too...e.g. Clean Energy Technology, High Speed Rails, Commercial and Military aircrafts ....not to mention zoo zoo toys :)
谁在担忧这样的飞机的用途呢？目前美国是国家之间冲突的主要受益人，因为它可以向冲突双方销售武器（这里的武器是指维持美国高标准生活的高端货）。现在中国也会在这条战线和美国竞争，除了在清洁能源技术、高铁、商用和军用飞机等战线之外，更不用说中国的猪猪玩具了* ：）
*：2009年12月12日，从感恩节至圣诞节的购物季，美国最热销的玩具是什么？是一款名叫“猪猪”（Zhuzhu）的电子仓鼠。
Karl Wright replied:
"There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button"
Nonsense.
The question is whether China is willing to call our bluff. While it may be true that the U.S. nuclear umbrella extends to Taiwan, we've never said we'll use nukes if Taiwan is invaded. And we probably wouldn't. So the strategy in China is simply to make sure that they prevail in a conventional conflict over Taiwan. And then, they will likely go ahead.
I think China is quite close to the point where they think they would prevail.
“大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。”
问题是中国是否想要我们摊牌。虽然可能美国的核保护伞范围真的包括了台湾，但我们从没说过如果台湾被入侵了我们会使用蛋蛋。而且我们很可能不会这样做。所以对中国的战略很简单，只要确保他们和台湾的摩擦维持在常规战争的水平就够了。这样的话，他们很可能就真的不会用蛋蛋。
我认为中国非常接近于认为他们在台海冲突中不会用到蛋蛋。
Joe Johnston wrote:
Yawwwwnnn...is Fox news going to drag out the ex fighter pilot cum options trader to issue another one of his "terrifying" reports about how...
哈~~唔，FOX新闻是不是正准备拉个前战斗机驾驶员兼现在的期权交易员来发他另一篇关于中国如何如何的“吓人”报道…
James Drouin replied:
Joe - Nope, instead they're going to help insure that 'you people' don't spend America into bankruptcy.
Perhaps you heard the message patriotic Americans sent 'you people' on November 2nd. Or, are memory problems an integral part of your group's requirements???
Joe，不，相反，他们正准备使人们相信“你们这些人”没有败光美国的家底，让美国破产。
可能你收到了那条爱国的美国人在11月2日发给“你们这些人”的信息。或者，失忆是你们这群人的一个必要的组成部分？
Tony Carlos replied:
Fox needn't worry about bankruptcy. Their largest non-family invester is an Arab prince.
FOX无需担心美国破产。他们最大的非家族投资者是一个阿拉伯王子。
Rob Ruff replied:
You really are ignorant if you think the Republicans did not spend this nation into bankruptcy right along with the Democrats. People who support EITHER party are just pawns in the game.
你真无知的可以，如果你认为共和党不会跟着民主党的路败光美国的家底。支持哪一边的人都只是你主子在游戏里面的卒子而已。
Martin Chen wrote:
Congratulation from USA.Long live , my dear homeland .Long live China .Lone live Chinese .Long live ,world peace!
美利坚合众国发来贺电。我亲爱的祖国万岁。中国万岁。中国人万岁。世界和平万岁！
JERRY MORIARTY replied:
I'm rooting for you guys now,since our own sold us out.Go China!
现在我也跟你们混了兄弟，因为我们原来跟那个把我们卖了。中国go go go！
Brendon Kerr wrote:
Me and my family have stopped buying as many Chinese products as possible, this is the main reason, because their technology is closing in on ours. Down in the South Pacific China is starting to shadow over us. So I am not supporting any Chinese made products if possible, sometimes there is no choice, but things like Apple, DELL and other Chinese products I will no longer support. Maybe designed in the US but mostly built in China. Corporations and gov are mostly to blame. For the US citizens it may not mean much to see such a plane but in the South pacific where New Zealand and Australia have small populations its a big threat. The only problem is, NZ sells a lot of dairy products to China now and Australia exports a lot of resources, if we had manufacturing we would not depend on this so much, thanks to our gov's who support a dictatorship. Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too? better yet, why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore. I guess first they get it produced cheap, that country gets strong and becomes a threat, our people that have lost jobs to manufacturing over here have nothing, through desperation they join to the military to get paid, the rich sit back while the poor fight the war that they created. No wonder you have people in the US shooting people in congress these days.
我和我家人已经尽可能不再购买中国的商品了，这主要是因为他们的技术正接近我们的水平。在南太平洋中国开始向我们投下它的身影。所以有可能的话我不会再支持任何中国产的商品，有时你没有选择，但像苹果、戴尔这样的东东和其他的中国商品，我不会再去支持了。它们可能是在美国设计的，但主要还是在中国制造。公司和政府是要责备最多的。对美国公民来说这样的一架飞机或者不会意味太多，但在南太平洋人口稀少的新西兰和澳大利亚，它是一个巨大的威胁。现在的问题是，新西兰卖了很多奶制品给中国，而澳大利亚出口了很多资源。如果我们有自己的制造业，我们不会如此依赖于中国。多谢我们的政府，它支持了一个专制国家。考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？最好的是，为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？我第一反应是他们让产品便宜下来了，然后外包的国家变强大了，构成威胁，我们那些失去了制造业的就业机会的人一无所有，绝望之下加入了军队，为了获得报酬，富人坐在后面看戏而穷人为他们制造出来的战争而战。难怪你们美国佬这几天在议会枪击议员。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too?"
Finally, someone in these forums who doesn't reflexively buy the "put a tariff on Chinese imports and U.S. manufacturing will come back."
“考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？”
终于在一个财经论坛里面找到一个人没有条件反射地认为“对中国进口征收关税，然后美国的制造业就会回来了。”
Sammy Leung replied:
Vietnam is a huge bubble, no one want to take the chance.
Labor is one thing, but it will take years to build the infrastructure to support the industry. China started in the 80's, it will take a decade or so for other countries to catch up. Assuming they have the resource to do it.
越南是个大泡沫，没人想去试水。
劳动力是其中一个因素，但要花好几年来进行基建以支持整个行业。中国在80年代就开始搞基建，其他国家要花十年左右的时间来追上中国。假定他们有搞基建的资源。
michael nussbaum replied:
Interesting argument, Brendon. I 've thought of Australia a lot in the past few months as our influence is waning under the current administration. Wish you hadn't written the last two sentences, though. The second to last is cliche'ist, while the last is inexcusable. We just had an election, and we will have another in less than two years. There is much we can do between now and then as you and your family are doing ,and you are far from alone in these efforts. Avoid, if you can, an appeal to convenient bogeymen, and DO NOT use that last sentence again, it will ruin any prior analysis as welll as any good work on your part.
有趣的观点，Brendon。在过去的几个月关于澳大利亚我想了很多，因为在当前美国对该地区的管理当中，我们的影响正逐渐式微。但我还是希望你没有写下最后两个句子。倒数第二个句子被说烂了，而最后一个不能构成一个理由。不到两年的时间我们就要进行一次选举。从现在开始我们可以做很多事情，就像你和你的家人在做的那样，你在你的行动当中绝对不会感到孤独。可以的话不要夹带私货，不要再用最后那个句子，它会让前面的分析和你对的地方也毁于一旦。
Mingham Liu replied:
it makes no sense that you declined to buy any Chinese product, cause even some of your dollars are belong to China,since China has bought large amounts of American national debt. "why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore", your comments only show your illiteracy of economics, let me tell you why, your country are not willing to manufacture inside, otherwise, you people and enterprises will make fewer profits, which means you will be poorer. I insist that you spend some time on a research of the iPhone export from China to USA from UC Irvine,you guys make a profit over a hundred dollars while Chinese workers just receive less than 10, so , there you know why you cannot avoid "made in China", next time when you decide to decline to buy any product from any country, please do some economic research, not just in a naive way! May your god bless you!
你减少购买中国货没有任何意义，因为甚至你手中的一些美元也是属于中国的，看看中国已经购买了庞大的美国国债。“为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？”你的回复只显示出你是个经济盲，让我告诉你为什么，你的国家不想在自家搞制造业，否则你的国民和企业将会赚取更少的利润，这意味着你将变得更贫穷。我劝告你花些时间来读读加州大学欧文分校对中国出口iPhone到美国的研究，每台iPhone你们这些人拿走了超过100美元的利润，而中国的工人拿到的少于10美元。所以，从这个例子你明白为什么你不能避开“中国制造”，下次你决定减少购买某个国家的产品时，请做些经济研究，不要天真地想当然！上帝保佑你！
华尔街中文网有原文翻译，这里只贴个链接就算了：
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/bch153240.asp?source=NewSearch
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/BCH194310.asp?source=NewSearch
下面是英文网的评论：
Richard Gould wrote:
Good thing we capped production of the F-22 and decided to rely on the less capable Lockheed F-35 to deter China...
好啊，我们限量生产F22并决定指望洛克希德性能较差的F35来抵御中国…
michael nussbaum replied:
Wouldn't it be patriotic if Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg took abut $5 billion from their foundations and dedicated it to the continued production of the F-22. Charity begins at home, and that is an earmark I could live with.
如果盖茨、巴菲特和彭博从他们的慈善基金那里拿出大约50亿美金来继续生产F22，这不是一个爱国行为吗？慈善要首先从国内开始，这笔钱我可以用到哦。
MICHAEL FRISCH wrote:
I am completely lost. Why are we being subjected to repeat info about this plane?
China has atomic bombs. There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button.
我整个人都失落了。为什么我们要不断贴这架飞机的消息啊？
中国有蛋蛋，大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。
Sammy Leung replied:
The problem is US will not pick a fight with any country that have nukes, the J20 is not really an issue at China's hand. But say if one of the US little rivals have it, it would make US think twice before starting a war with them.
这只是因为美国不想和有核国家开战，所以J20在中国手上才不是一个问题。如果是与美国敌对的一个小国拥有J20，美国就会好好考虑是否与它们开战了。
Kirk Linn replied:
You don't have to pick a fight to defeat your enemies, witness the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. You tell me which way the dominoes fell Sammy. (your probably too young to understand that analogy)
你不需要用战争来打败你的敌人，看看前苏联和东方集团，你告诉我这个多米诺骨牌是以哪种方式倒下的。（你可能年纪太小了，看不懂我这个比喻）。
James Drouin replied:
Michael - Keep your night job flipping burgers because as a forecaster of future events you clearly have serious limitations.
Perhaps you might want to look at who supplied the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc, before you expose that enormous gap in your knowlege base about the US not having to face Communist weapons.
Michael，你就继续晚上翻你的汉堡吧*，作为一个对未来事件的预测者，你明显能力严重有限。
竟然认为美国不需要面对共产党的武器，在你暴露出你巨大的无知前，或者你要看看谁在支持朝鲜、北越、利比亚、伊拉克、伊朗等等国家，
*：快餐店里不需要技术的简单体力活,工资又低,所以被人视为低贱的工作。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
James, a person who thinks that China "has never" been our friend doesn't have any business denigrating others' ability to "forecast." When you don't even know the past, how can you possibly know the future?
James，一个认为中国“从来没”当过我们的朋友的人，没资格贬低其他人的“预测”能力。当你连过去都不知道时，你怎么可能会知道将来呢？
Justin Murray replied:
China may have the bomb, but they don't have a reliable delivery mechanism to use it on anyone outside their immediate region
中国可能有蛋蛋，但他们没有一个可依赖的武力投送系统来把它用在他们领土外的任何人身上。
Sammy Leung replied:
Try thinking this scenario. A Chinese sub went undetected in the middle of a Navy exercise.
New York and California would be a big risk even for mid-short range nuke.
想想这个情景。一条中国潜艇神不知鬼不觉地混进了美军的一场海军演习当中。
即便是中短航程的蛋蛋，也是纽约和加州的一个巨大威胁。
Kirk Linn replied:
Sammy,
How can you be so sure that they didn't let the Chinese think they fooled them? After all what could be more effective than letting your enemy think you don't know where they are when you really do want to blow them out of the water?
I am perfectly content to let the Chinese get full of themselves, they are good at that, just before they fall on their collective faces.
Don't think the U.S. is just standing by Sammy, even with the current administration.
Sammy，
你能肯定这不是美军故意让中国人认为他们戏耍了美军吗？毕竟，还有什么比让你的敌人以为你不知道他们在何处，而事实上你正想把他们轰出水面更有效的战略呢？
我对让中国人自骄自满完全没意见，他们总是很容易这样，在他们最终集体跌倒之前。
不要以为美国对于当前的情况就只是在旁边看着而已，Sammy。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
So Kirk, suppose we get into a war with China in China. Are you going to be taking up arms to fight the PLA? Or are you going to be an armchair quarterback, drinking a PBR and cheering each Fox News report?
所以，Kirk，假设我们现在在中国和中国打仗。你会拿上你的武器去和PLA战吗？还是坐在扶手椅里指点江山，喝着一瓶PBR公司的酒，为每条FOX的新闻报道喝彩？
RICK BARAN replied:
mmm not reliable delivery system, since 1967 modified JL2 can now deliver upto 10K miles, you ignorante
唔唔，没有有效的武力投送系统，自1967年始，JL2的改良版就能发射至1万英里以外，你真无知。
Tony Carlos replied:
If our navy seriously can't detect a diesel/electric sub in it's midst, we may as well just hand the Chinese the keys right now.
如果我们的海军真的在演习的时候探测不出一条柴油电动潜艇，我们现在等于是把家门口的钥匙递给了中国人。
Darragh Scully replied:
Then again neither side is that stupid.
所以再一次，两边都不是这么蠢的。
Chris Georgandellis replied:
Those who believe that the atom bomb has stopped conventional warfare obviously stopped studying the history of war subsequent to August, 1945.
那些认为蛋蛋防止了常规战争的人明显没研究过1945年8月之后的战争史。
Jaydeep Dave replied:
Who is worried about use of such aircrafts ? Currently US is the major beneficiary of conflicts between nations by selling weapons (read high end products that sustain high standard of living) to both sides. Now China would compete on that front too...e.g. Clean Energy Technology, High Speed Rails, Commercial and Military aircrafts ....not to mention zoo zoo toys :)
谁在担忧这样的飞机的用途呢？目前美国是国家之间冲突的主要受益人，因为它可以向冲突双方销售武器（这里的武器是指维持美国高标准生活的高端货）。现在中国也会在这条战线和美国竞争，除了在清洁能源技术、高铁、商用和军用飞机等战线之外，更不用说中国的猪猪玩具了* ：）
*：2009年12月12日，从感恩节至圣诞节的购物季，美国最热销的玩具是什么？是一款名叫“猪猪”（Zhuzhu）的电子仓鼠。
Karl Wright replied:
"There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button"
Nonsense.
The question is whether China is willing to call our bluff. While it may be true that the U.S. nuclear umbrella extends to Taiwan, we've never said we'll use nukes if Taiwan is invaded. And we probably wouldn't. So the strategy in China is simply to make sure that they prevail in a conventional conflict over Taiwan. And then, they will likely go ahead.
I think China is quite close to the point where they think they would prevail.
“大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。”
问题是中国是否想要我们摊牌。虽然可能美国的核保护伞范围真的包括了台湾，但我们从没说过如果台湾被入侵了我们会使用蛋蛋。而且我们很可能不会这样做。所以对中国的战略很简单，只要确保他们和台湾的摩擦维持在常规战争的水平就够了。这样的话，他们很可能就真的不会用蛋蛋。
我认为中国非常接近于认为他们在台海冲突中不会用到蛋蛋。
Joe Johnston wrote:
Yawwwwnnn...is Fox news going to drag out the ex fighter pilot cum options trader to issue another one of his "terrifying" reports about how...
哈~~唔，FOX新闻是不是正准备拉个前战斗机驾驶员兼现在的期权交易员来发他另一篇关于中国如何如何的“吓人”报道…
James Drouin replied:
Joe - Nope, instead they're going to help insure that 'you people' don't spend America into bankruptcy.
Perhaps you heard the message patriotic Americans sent 'you people' on November 2nd. Or, are memory problems an integral part of your group's requirements???
Joe，不，相反，他们正准备使人们相信“你们这些人”没有败光美国的家底，让美国破产。
可能你收到了那条爱国的美国人在11月2日发给“你们这些人”的信息。或者，失忆是你们这群人的一个必要的组成部分？
Tony Carlos replied:
Fox needn't worry about bankruptcy. Their largest non-family invester is an Arab prince.
FOX无需担心美国破产。他们最大的非家族投资者是一个阿拉伯王子。
Rob Ruff replied:
You really are ignorant if you think the Republicans did not spend this nation into bankruptcy right along with the Democrats. People who support EITHER party are just pawns in the game.
你真无知的可以，如果你认为共和党不会跟着民主党的路败光美国的家底。支持哪一边的人都只是你主子在游戏里面的卒子而已。
Martin Chen wrote:
Congratulation from USA.Long live , my dear homeland .Long live China .Lone live Chinese .Long live ,world peace!
美利坚合众国发来贺电。我亲爱的祖国万岁。中国万岁。中国人万岁。世界和平万岁！
JERRY MORIARTY replied:
I'm rooting for you guys now,since our own sold us out.Go China!
现在我也跟你们混了兄弟，因为我们原来跟那个把我们卖了。中国go go go！
Brendon Kerr wrote:
Me and my family have stopped buying as many Chinese products as possible, this is the main reason, because their technology is closing in on ours. Down in the South Pacific China is starting to shadow over us. So I am not supporting any Chinese made products if possible, sometimes there is no choice, but things like Apple, DELL and other Chinese products I will no longer support. Maybe designed in the US but mostly built in China. Corporations and gov are mostly to blame. For the US citizens it may not mean much to see such a plane but in the South pacific where New Zealand and Australia have small populations its a big threat. The only problem is, NZ sells a lot of dairy products to China now and Australia exports a lot of resources, if we had manufacturing we would not depend on this so much, thanks to our gov's who support a dictatorship. Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too? better yet, why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore. I guess first they get it produced cheap, that country gets strong and becomes a threat, our people that have lost jobs to manufacturing over here have nothing, through desperation they join to the military to get paid, the rich sit back while the poor fight the war that they created. No wonder you have people in the US shooting people in congress these days.
我和我家人已经尽可能不再购买中国的商品了，这主要是因为他们的技术正接近我们的水平。在南太平洋中国开始向我们投下它的身影。所以有可能的话我不会再支持任何中国产的商品，有时你没有选择，但像苹果、戴尔这样的东东和其他的中国商品，我不会再去支持了。它们可能是在美国设计的，但主要还是在中国制造。公司和政府是要责备最多的。对美国公民来说这样的一架飞机或者不会意味太多，但在南太平洋人口稀少的新西兰和澳大利亚，它是一个巨大的威胁。现在的问题是，新西兰卖了很多奶制品给中国，而澳大利亚出口了很多资源。如果我们有自己的制造业，我们不会如此依赖于中国。多谢我们的政府，它支持了一个专制国家。考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？最好的是，为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？我第一反应是他们让产品便宜下来了，然后外包的国家变强大了，构成威胁，我们那些失去了制造业的就业机会的人一无所有，绝望之下加入了军队，为了获得报酬，富人坐在后面看戏而穷人为他们制造出来的战争而战。难怪你们美国佬这几天在议会枪击议员。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too?"
Finally, someone in these forums who doesn't reflexively buy the "put a tariff on Chinese imports and U.S. manufacturing will come back."
“考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？”
终于在一个财经论坛里面找到一个人没有条件反射地认为“对中国进口征收关税，然后美国的制造业就会回来了。”
Sammy Leung replied:
Vietnam is a huge bubble, no one want to take the chance.
Labor is one thing, but it will take years to build the infrastructure to support the industry. China started in the 80's, it will take a decade or so for other countries to catch up. Assuming they have the resource to do it.
越南是个大泡沫，没人想去试水。
劳动力是其中一个因素，但要花好几年来进行基建以支持整个行业。中国在80年代就开始搞基建，其他国家要花十年左右的时间来追上中国。假定他们有搞基建的资源。
michael nussbaum replied:
Interesting argument, Brendon. I 've thought of Australia a lot in the past few months as our influence is waning under the current administration. Wish you hadn't written the last two sentences, though. The second to last is cliche'ist, while the last is inexcusable. We just had an election, and we will have another in less than two years. There is much we can do between now and then as you and your family are doing ,and you are far from alone in these efforts. Avoid, if you can, an appeal to convenient bogeymen, and DO NOT use that last sentence again, it will ruin any prior analysis as welll as any good work on your part.
有趣的观点，Brendon。在过去的几个月关于澳大利亚我想了很多，因为在当前美国对该地区的管理当中，我们的影响正逐渐式微。但我还是希望你没有写下最后两个句子。倒数第二个句子被说烂了，而最后一个不能构成一个理由。不到两年的时间我们就要进行一次选举。从现在开始我们可以做很多事情，就像你和你的家人在做的那样，你在你的行动当中绝对不会感到孤独。可以的话不要夹带私货，不要再用最后那个句子，它会让前面的分析和你对的地方也毁于一旦。
Mingham Liu replied:
it makes no sense that you declined to buy any Chinese product, cause even some of your dollars are belong to China,since China has bought large amounts of American national debt. "why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore", your comments only show your illiteracy of economics, let me tell you why, your country are not willing to manufacture inside, otherwise, you people and enterprises will make fewer profits, which means you will be poorer. I insist that you spend some time on a research of the iPhone export from China to USA from UC Irvine,you guys make a profit over a hundred dollars while Chinese workers just receive less than 10, so , there you know why you cannot avoid "made in China", next time when you decide to decline to buy any product from any country, please do some economic research, not just in a naive way! May your god bless you!
你减少购买中国货没有任何意义，因为甚至你手中的一些美元也是属于中国的，看看中国已经购买了庞大的美国国债。“为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？”你的回复只显示出你是个经济盲，让我告诉你为什么，你的国家不想在自家搞制造业，否则你的国民和企业将会赚取更少的利润，这意味着你将变得更贫穷。我劝告你花些时间来读读加州大学欧文分校对中国出口iPhone到美国的研究，每台iPhone你们这些人拿走了超过100美元的利润，而中国的工人拿到的少于10美元。所以，从这个例子你明白为什么你不能避开“中国制造”，下次你决定减少购买某个国家的产品时，请做些经济研究，不要天真地想当然！上帝保佑你！转自爬山虎翻译网站。看看财经媒体读者的评论又是怎样的。另外对比一下华尔街中文网和英文网的不同评论会是一件有趣的事。
华尔街中文网有原文翻译，这里只贴个链接就算了：
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/bch153240.asp?source=NewSearch
http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20110111/BCH194310.asp?source=NewSearch
下面是英文网的评论：
Richard Gould wrote:
Good thing we capped production of the F-22 and decided to rely on the less capable Lockheed F-35 to deter China...
好啊，我们限量生产F22并决定指望洛克希德性能较差的F35来抵御中国…
michael nussbaum replied:
Wouldn't it be patriotic if Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg took abut $5 billion from their foundations and dedicated it to the continued production of the F-22. Charity begins at home, and that is an earmark I could live with.
如果盖茨、巴菲特和彭博从他们的慈善基金那里拿出大约50亿美金来继续生产F22，这不是一个爱国行为吗？慈善要首先从国内开始，这笔钱我可以用到哦。
MICHAEL FRISCH wrote:
I am completely lost. Why are we being subjected to repeat info about this plane?
China has atomic bombs. There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button.
我整个人都失落了。为什么我们要不断贴这架飞机的消息啊？
中国有蛋蛋，大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。
Sammy Leung replied:
The problem is US will not pick a fight with any country that have nukes, the J20 is not really an issue at China's hand. But say if one of the US little rivals have it, it would make US think twice before starting a war with them.
这只是因为美国不想和有核国家开战，所以J20在中国手上才不是一个问题。如果是与美国敌对的一个小国拥有J20，美国就会好好考虑是否与它们开战了。
Kirk Linn replied:
You don't have to pick a fight to defeat your enemies, witness the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. You tell me which way the dominoes fell Sammy. (your probably too young to understand that analogy)
你不需要用战争来打败你的敌人，看看前苏联和东方集团，你告诉我这个多米诺骨牌是以哪种方式倒下的。（你可能年纪太小了，看不懂我这个比喻）。
James Drouin replied:
Michael - Keep your night job flipping burgers because as a forecaster of future events you clearly have serious limitations.
Perhaps you might want to look at who supplied the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc, before you expose that enormous gap in your knowlege base about the US not having to face Communist weapons.
Michael，你就继续晚上翻你的汉堡吧*，作为一个对未来事件的预测者，你明显能力严重有限。
竟然认为美国不需要面对共产党的武器，在你暴露出你巨大的无知前，或者你要看看谁在支持朝鲜、北越、利比亚、伊拉克、伊朗等等国家，
*：快餐店里不需要技术的简单体力活,工资又低,所以被人视为低贱的工作。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
James, a person who thinks that China "has never" been our friend doesn't have any business denigrating others' ability to "forecast." When you don't even know the past, how can you possibly know the future?
James，一个认为中国“从来没”当过我们的朋友的人，没资格贬低其他人的“预测”能力。当你连过去都不知道时，你怎么可能会知道将来呢？
Justin Murray replied:
China may have the bomb, but they don't have a reliable delivery mechanism to use it on anyone outside their immediate region
中国可能有蛋蛋，但他们没有一个可依赖的武力投送系统来把它用在他们领土外的任何人身上。
Sammy Leung replied:
Try thinking this scenario. A Chinese sub went undetected in the middle of a Navy exercise.
New York and California would be a big risk even for mid-short range nuke.
想想这个情景。一条中国潜艇神不知鬼不觉地混进了美军的一场海军演习当中。
即便是中短航程的蛋蛋，也是纽约和加州的一个巨大威胁。
Kirk Linn replied:
Sammy,
How can you be so sure that they didn't let the Chinese think they fooled them? After all what could be more effective than letting your enemy think you don't know where they are when you really do want to blow them out of the water?
I am perfectly content to let the Chinese get full of themselves, they are good at that, just before they fall on their collective faces.
Don't think the U.S. is just standing by Sammy, even with the current administration.
Sammy，
你能肯定这不是美军故意让中国人认为他们戏耍了美军吗？毕竟，还有什么比让你的敌人以为你不知道他们在何处，而事实上你正想把他们轰出水面更有效的战略呢？
我对让中国人自骄自满完全没意见，他们总是很容易这样，在他们最终集体跌倒之前。
不要以为美国对于当前的情况就只是在旁边看着而已，Sammy。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
So Kirk, suppose we get into a war with China in China. Are you going to be taking up arms to fight the PLA? Or are you going to be an armchair quarterback, drinking a PBR and cheering each Fox News report?
所以，Kirk，假设我们现在在中国和中国打仗。你会拿上你的武器去和PLA战吗？还是坐在扶手椅里指点江山，喝着一瓶PBR公司的酒，为每条FOX的新闻报道喝彩？
RICK BARAN replied:
mmm not reliable delivery system, since 1967 modified JL2 can now deliver upto 10K miles, you ignorante
唔唔，没有有效的武力投送系统，自1967年始，JL2的改良版就能发射至1万英里以外，你真无知。
Tony Carlos replied:
If our navy seriously can't detect a diesel/electric sub in it's midst, we may as well just hand the Chinese the keys right now.
如果我们的海军真的在演习的时候探测不出一条柴油电动潜艇，我们现在等于是把家门口的钥匙递给了中国人。
Darragh Scully replied:
Then again neither side is that stupid.
所以再一次，两边都不是这么蠢的。
Chris Georgandellis replied:
Those who believe that the atom bomb has stopped conventional warfare obviously stopped studying the history of war subsequent to August, 1945.
那些认为蛋蛋防止了常规战争的人明显没研究过1945年8月之后的战争史。
Jaydeep Dave replied:
Who is worried about use of such aircrafts ? Currently US is the major beneficiary of conflicts between nations by selling weapons (read high end products that sustain high standard of living) to both sides. Now China would compete on that front too...e.g. Clean Energy Technology, High Speed Rails, Commercial and Military aircrafts ....not to mention zoo zoo toys :)
谁在担忧这样的飞机的用途呢？目前美国是国家之间冲突的主要受益人，因为它可以向冲突双方销售武器（这里的武器是指维持美国高标准生活的高端货）。现在中国也会在这条战线和美国竞争，除了在清洁能源技术、高铁、商用和军用飞机等战线之外，更不用说中国的猪猪玩具了* ：）
*：2009年12月12日，从感恩节至圣诞节的购物季，美国最热销的玩具是什么？是一款名叫“猪猪”（Zhuzhu）的电子仓鼠。
Karl Wright replied:
"There won't be any conventional warfare between large nations ever again because someone's finger will be on the GO button"
Nonsense.
The question is whether China is willing to call our bluff. While it may be true that the U.S. nuclear umbrella extends to Taiwan, we've never said we'll use nukes if Taiwan is invaded. And we probably wouldn't. So the strategy in China is simply to make sure that they prevail in a conventional conflict over Taiwan. And then, they will likely go ahead.
I think China is quite close to the point where they think they would prevail.
“大国之间从无常规战争，因为有人的手指放在发射蛋蛋的按钮上哦。”
问题是中国是否想要我们摊牌。虽然可能美国的核保护伞范围真的包括了台湾，但我们从没说过如果台湾被入侵了我们会使用蛋蛋。而且我们很可能不会这样做。所以对中国的战略很简单，只要确保他们和台湾的摩擦维持在常规战争的水平就够了。这样的话，他们很可能就真的不会用蛋蛋。
我认为中国非常接近于认为他们在台海冲突中不会用到蛋蛋。
Joe Johnston wrote:
Yawwwwnnn...is Fox news going to drag out the ex fighter pilot cum options trader to issue another one of his "terrifying" reports about how...
哈~~唔，FOX新闻是不是正准备拉个前战斗机驾驶员兼现在的期权交易员来发他另一篇关于中国如何如何的“吓人”报道…
James Drouin replied:
Joe - Nope, instead they're going to help insure that 'you people' don't spend America into bankruptcy.
Perhaps you heard the message patriotic Americans sent 'you people' on November 2nd. Or, are memory problems an integral part of your group's requirements???
Joe，不，相反，他们正准备使人们相信“你们这些人”没有败光美国的家底，让美国破产。
可能你收到了那条爱国的美国人在11月2日发给“你们这些人”的信息。或者，失忆是你们这群人的一个必要的组成部分？
Tony Carlos replied:
Fox needn't worry about bankruptcy. Their largest non-family invester is an Arab prince.
FOX无需担心美国破产。他们最大的非家族投资者是一个阿拉伯王子。
Rob Ruff replied:
You really are ignorant if you think the Republicans did not spend this nation into bankruptcy right along with the Democrats. People who support EITHER party are just pawns in the game.
你真无知的可以，如果你认为共和党不会跟着民主党的路败光美国的家底。支持哪一边的人都只是你主子在游戏里面的卒子而已。
Martin Chen wrote:
Congratulation from USA.Long live , my dear homeland .Long live China .Lone live Chinese .Long live ,world peace!
美利坚合众国发来贺电。我亲爱的祖国万岁。中国万岁。中国人万岁。世界和平万岁！
JERRY MORIARTY replied:
I'm rooting for you guys now,since our own sold us out.Go China!
现在我也跟你们混了兄弟，因为我们原来跟那个把我们卖了。中国go go go！
Brendon Kerr wrote:
Me and my family have stopped buying as many Chinese products as possible, this is the main reason, because their technology is closing in on ours. Down in the South Pacific China is starting to shadow over us. So I am not supporting any Chinese made products if possible, sometimes there is no choice, but things like Apple, DELL and other Chinese products I will no longer support. Maybe designed in the US but mostly built in China. Corporations and gov are mostly to blame. For the US citizens it may not mean much to see such a plane but in the South pacific where New Zealand and Australia have small populations its a big threat. The only problem is, NZ sells a lot of dairy products to China now and Australia exports a lot of resources, if we had manufacturing we would not depend on this so much, thanks to our gov's who support a dictatorship. Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too? better yet, why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore. I guess first they get it produced cheap, that country gets strong and becomes a threat, our people that have lost jobs to manufacturing over here have nothing, through desperation they join to the military to get paid, the rich sit back while the poor fight the war that they created. No wonder you have people in the US shooting people in congress these days.
我和我家人已经尽可能不再购买中国的商品了，这主要是因为他们的技术正接近我们的水平。在南太平洋中国开始向我们投下它的身影。所以有可能的话我不会再支持任何中国产的商品，有时你没有选择，但像苹果、戴尔这样的东东和其他的中国商品，我不会再去支持了。它们可能是在美国设计的，但主要还是在中国制造。公司和政府是要责备最多的。对美国公民来说这样的一架飞机或者不会意味太多，但在南太平洋人口稀少的新西兰和澳大利亚，它是一个巨大的威胁。现在的问题是，新西兰卖了很多奶制品给中国，而澳大利亚出口了很多资源。如果我们有自己的制造业，我们不会如此依赖于中国。多谢我们的政府，它支持了一个专制国家。考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？最好的是，为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？我第一反应是他们让产品便宜下来了，然后外包的国家变强大了，构成威胁，我们那些失去了制造业的就业机会的人一无所有，绝望之下加入了军队，为了获得报酬，富人坐在后面看戏而穷人为他们制造出来的战争而战。难怪你们美国佬这几天在议会枪击议员。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"Considering Chinese labor is up to 3 times more expensive now than places like Vietnam, why aren't we making an effort to manufacture in those cheaper countries if we have too?"
Finally, someone in these forums who doesn't reflexively buy the "put a tariff on Chinese imports and U.S. manufacturing will come back."
“考虑到中国劳动力成本现在要比越南这样的地方高出多达3倍，如果我们也可以的话，为什么不把生产放在这些更便宜的国家呢？”
终于在一个财经论坛里面找到一个人没有条件反射地认为“对中国进口征收关税，然后美国的制造业就会回来了。”
Sammy Leung replied:
Vietnam is a huge bubble, no one want to take the chance.
Labor is one thing, but it will take years to build the infrastructure to support the industry. China started in the 80's, it will take a decade or so for other countries to catch up. Assuming they have the resource to do it.
越南是个大泡沫，没人想去试水。
劳动力是其中一个因素，但要花好几年来进行基建以支持整个行业。中国在80年代就开始搞基建，其他国家要花十年左右的时间来追上中国。假定他们有搞基建的资源。
michael nussbaum replied:
Interesting argument, Brendon. I 've thought of Australia a lot in the past few months as our influence is waning under the current administration. Wish you hadn't written the last two sentences, though. The second to last is cliche'ist, while the last is inexcusable. We just had an election, and we will have another in less than two years. There is much we can do between now and then as you and your family are doing ,and you are far from alone in these efforts. Avoid, if you can, an appeal to convenient bogeymen, and DO NOT use that last sentence again, it will ruin any prior analysis as welll as any good work on your part.
有趣的观点，Brendon。在过去的几个月关于澳大利亚我想了很多，因为在当前美国对该地区的管理当中，我们的影响正逐渐式微。但我还是希望你没有写下最后两个句子。倒数第二个句子被说烂了，而最后一个不能构成一个理由。不到两年的时间我们就要进行一次选举。从现在开始我们可以做很多事情，就像你和你的家人在做的那样，你在你的行动当中绝对不会感到孤独。可以的话不要夹带私货，不要再用最后那个句子，它会让前面的分析和你对的地方也毁于一旦。
Mingham Liu replied:
it makes no sense that you declined to buy any Chinese product, cause even some of your dollars are belong to China,since China has bought large amounts of American national debt. "why is it that government and large enterprises allow manufacturing to go offshore", your comments only show your illiteracy of economics, let me tell you why, your country are not willing to manufacture inside, otherwise, you people and enterprises will make fewer profits, which means you will be poorer. I insist that you spend some time on a research of the iPhone export from China to USA from UC Irvine,you guys make a profit over a hundred dollars while Chinese workers just receive less than 10, so , there you know why you cannot avoid "made in China", next time when you decide to decline to buy any product from any country, please do some economic research, not just in a naive way! May your god bless you!
你减少购买中国货没有任何意义，因为甚至你手中的一些美元也是属于中国的，看看中国已经购买了庞大的美国国债。“为什么政府和大公司要把制造业外包出去呢？”你的回复只显示出你是个经济盲，让我告诉你为什么，你的国家不想在自家搞制造业，否则你的国民和企业将会赚取更少的利润，这意味着你将变得更贫穷。我劝告你花些时间来读读加州大学欧文分校对中国出口iPhone到美国的研究，每台iPhone你们这些人拿走了超过100美元的利润，而中国的工人拿到的少于10美元。所以，从这个例子你明白为什么你不能避开“中国制造”，下次你决定减少购买某个国家的产品时，请做些经济研究，不要天真地想当然！上帝保佑你！
Tony Carlos replied:
Let's see if we have this straight: China is bad because they are a dictatorship. But our government is at fault because they allowed our corporations to move manufacturing offshore. So if our government was more dictatorial, and stopped any offshoring, you'd be happier?
看看我们是否直接得出这个结论：中国是不好的，因为他们是个专制国家。但我们的政府错了，因为他们允许我们的公司把制造业外包出去。所以如果我们的政府更专制点，阻止任何外包活动，你会觉得更开心？
Justin Murray wrote:
Is it me, or does that photograph look like they just Photoshopped the jet in the air?
只有我觉得这张照片是他们把飞机ps上去的吗？
Mike Zhang replied:
I believe it's PS. See the engines: the engines are cold while the plane is rising.
I guess the media run out of pictures to sustain this round of news cooking.
我相信它是PS过的。看看发动机：在飞机起飞时发动机是冷的。
我猜那些媒体为了准备这轮新闻大餐把图片都用光了。
Mingham Liu replied:
Zhang? You really believe it's PS? so why dont you chanllenge that Mr Gates had admitted that Chairman Hu conceded him that J-20 has finished her test flight? Next time search more evidence to support your guess and thank you !
张？你真的相信它是ps的？那么为什么你不怀疑一下盖茨承认胡core向他透露了J20完成试飞的报道？下次百度更多证据来支持你的臆测，谢谢！
Justin Murray replied:
It wouldn't be the first time the Chinese PM lied about something. There's a distinct lack of air distortion around the engine ports to indicate it's actually doing anything.
中国的公众媒体撒谎又不是第一次。发动机端口附近明显没有空气扭曲现象来证明它正在运转。
Mike Zhang replied:
Justin: Exactly. It's a problem of the reporter's selection, though. There have been many PSed or created pictures of J-20. Only a small collection look authentic. As for this one, the trace of PS is too obvious.
Mingham Liu: You got overly excited over educated comments. Please learn some basics of digital photography. Thank you.
Justin：是的，这是媒体选择的照片的问题。有许多PS过或者凭空捏造的J20照片。只有小部分看上去是真实的。对于这张照片，PS的痕迹太明显了。
Mingham Liu：你总是爱叫人多学习啊。那么请你学习一下数码拍照的基础知识。谢谢。
H. Edwin Hall wrote:
Does it have GE's avionics in it?
它里面有通用的航空设备吗？
JERRY MORIARTY replied:
Yes,part of the public/private partnership.It's ok,Clinton approved the selling of high technology to China.
有的，这是通用公开或私底下参与了这个项目的部分内容。没问题，克林顿同意了向中国卖高端技术嘛。
Tony Carlos replied:
And Nixon opened China to the west in the first place.
首先要感谢尼克松把中国开放给西方。
MATTHEW SANGER replied:
If it doesn't, I'm sure it will when GE signs up for a joint venture. I assume the "joint" is a referrence to what you have to be smoking to share your technology with these guys.
就算通用原来没卖高端技术给中国，我肯定当通用在一家合资公司的协议书上签字后，它会这样做。我认为所谓“合资”指的是你要和某某分享你的技术时不得不放的烟幕。
JULIAN GAMMON III replied:
As I recall President Bill Clinton has already shared sensitive technology with the Chinese during his first term. We a reaping what he has sown.
我回忆了一下，比尔·克林顿总统在他的第一个任期就已经和中国人分享敏感技术了。我们正收获他当初种下的恶果。
Gerard Muller wrote:
China is obviously developing the capability to militarily challenge the US in the western Pacific in much the same way that the Japanese did in the 20s and 30s.
Using copied technology (they have a limited capability to develop anything on their own) they are launching an aircraft carrier, are threatening US carriers with maneuverable satellite controlled ballistic missiles and now a stealth fighter.
All these events have led to the meeting with the SecDef where China is openly warning the US that if it aids Taiwan in maintaining their democracy, against the intent of China to bring it back under its communist control,
there will be serious repurcussions. That is a departure from the past and does not bode well for future relations with China, the active supporter of North Korea and Iran.
What is happening is that China is changing its role from that of an inward looking country to one of a classical expansionist communist dictatorship, a la Stalin's Russia. The difference being that China apparently believes that its economic strenght coupled with its repressive totalitarian state will succeed where Russia failed.
So now the US is faced with two clearly defined threats, the ongoing unconvential terrorist threat that is coupled with the Afhan war and a rising militarist Chinese threat.
This is coming at a time when the US is under enormous economic stress with a president that leads a party that wants the US to adopt pacifist and socialist policies that Europe pioneered in the 50s and 60s but is now withdrawing from because it is ruining them.
All these things coming together as they have is not likley to end well...at least for democracies.
中国明显正在发展它的军事力量来挑战美国在西太平洋的地位，就像日本在20世纪20至30年代所做的那样。
通过复制别人的技术（他们能力有限，发展不出自己的东东），他们正要让一首航母下水，用高机动性的卫星控制的导弹威胁美国的航母，而现在是一架隐形战斗机。
所有这些事件最终促使了国防部长的访华，而在他访华过程中，中国公开警告美国，如果它帮助台湾维持他们的民主政体，违反中国把它收回来置于共产主义控制之下的意愿，将会产生严重的恶果。中国，这个朝鲜和伊朗积极的支持分子，已经和过去的中国说再见了，对美国将来的对华关系来说不是一个吉兆。
目前正在发生的是，中国正改变它过去只考虑国内情况的角色，变成一个典型的共产主义独裁的扩张分子，就像斯大林时期的俄罗斯一样。区别在于中国明显相信它的经济实力加上它高压下的极权统治会在俄罗斯跌倒的地方爬起来。
所以现在美国面临两个明确的威胁，一个是正在进行的非常规恐怖主义威胁和与之相关的阿富汗战争，另一个是正在崛起的军国主义中国的威胁。
这些威胁有朝一日终会来临，因为美国目前正面临巨大的经济压力，而它的总统所率领的政党想美国采纳和平主义和社会主义的政策，这些政策是欧洲在上世纪50年代和60年代作为先驱最先尝试过的，但欧洲现在正摒弃它们，因为这些政策正在毁灭他们。
所有这些事情都集中在一起了，不可能会善终的，至少对于民主国家来说。
Darragh Scully replied:
So now that they have this Jet we need more than just a Missile shield.
"Russian VHF counter
stealth radars proliferate
Dr Carlo Kopp"
Check that out. This situation is starting to remind me about the Irish Potatoe Famine (so called that is).
If not for that what Might Boston, Chicago and New York have ended up like...
Erin Go Bragh.
Just so there is no mis interpretation what I am saying is that the downed plane might be a blessing in disguise. this system may be able to be developed and used in conjunction with laser weapons and a missile shield to successfully counter any Chinese Threats. Its a big if though, but its all ive got. lol
Just wondering if when NASA does Teraform Mars, will the Chinese be Welcome there?
所以既然他们拥有这架飞机，我们需要的就不止是一个导弹防御系统了。
“俄罗斯的高频反隐形雷达量产了。——卡罗科普博士*”
看看是不是这样吧。现在的情况开始让我想起爱尔兰的马铃薯饥荒了（它就是这样叫的）。
如果不是这样的话，波士顿、芝加哥和纽约最终可能会变成咋样…
永远效忠于爱尔兰。**
所以我的理解是没错的，我的意思是这架从天而降的飞机可能会让我们因祸得福。我们的导弹防御系统可能会升级，和激光武器结合起来使用，来成功抵御任何中国的威胁。这会是一个巨大的系统如果最终建成的话，但它是我所能想到的唯一的对付中国的方法，嘻嘻。
想知道如果NASA最终完成了火星改造计划，中国人是否会在那里受到欢迎。
*：澳大利亚的航空专业人士。
**：Erin Go Bragh是爱尔兰盖尔语，大概意思是“Ireland forever”。
Mingham Liu replied:
Gerard,I am really sorry to see your comments, cause you seem to know nothing about China, here , I ,a somehow standard Chinese insist that you have to spend part of your life there, in order to get a more comprehensive view and deeper understanding of Chinese history and culture, and the overall attitude of our people to USA and the whole world, in my opinion, until then you have no right to do any irresponsible insult to China, my homeland. May your god bless you !
Gerard，看到你的回复我真的感到遗憾，因为你似乎对中国一无所知。这里，我，一个标准的中国人，还是坚持认为你要在中国度过你人生的一部分时光来更全面更深入地了解中国的历史、文化和我们的人民对美国及全球的总体态度。在我看来，直至那时为止，你都没资格不负责任地侮辱我的祖国中国。祝愿你的上帝会保佑你！
Bryan Smith replied:
For Mingham,
Better take a closer look at your military. The U.S. military hold no illusions about China's military. Mr. Muller is correct, and is not disparaging the Chinese culture or the people that live there, just the Chinese military.
The Chinese government has made no bones about wanting Taiwan back into the fold. One day, when China feels that it is strong enough, it will insist that Taiwan come back, and when it refuses, it will take it back.
To think otherwise...is fool hardy.
And I thought the Chinese did not like religion, or believe in Gods? Better check the “I Ching” for direction.
Sincerely, Bryan Smith.
May your days be filled in reflection.
回Mingham，
你最好多了解你的军队。美国的军队对中国军队没有任何偏见。Muller先生是对的，没有贬低中国文化和住在那里的人民，他仅仅针对中国军队。
中国政府从不遮掩它想收复台湾的决心。有朝一日中国觉得它足够强大了，它会要求台湾回归，而若台湾拒绝，它会把它收回去。
从另外的角度看，这是有勇无谋的。
另外我以为中国人不喜欢宗教，他们不信上帝？最好查查易经为你找准方向。
谨启，Bryan Smith
希望你每天都能多反思。
Dave Peterson replied:
Personally, Mingham, I hope Gerard is wrong, but we can't assume that he is wrong. I don't think that there is any precedent for the current military build up in China, so the understanding of China's history and even culture (given the huge cultural changes that are now occurring there) seem very irrelevant to me.
个人而言，Mingham，我希望Gerard是错的，但我们不能假设他是错的。
我不认为当前在中国建立起来的军队在过去有什么范例可供借鉴，所以对中国历史甚至文化（考虑到现在中国的文化正发生剧变）的了解对我来说似乎和中国的军队没什么关系。
Gerard Muller replied:
Mr. Mingham I am not insulting China, I am simply relating what the Communist Party in China is pursueing in the name of China. If you are in China you of course have no say as to what the party does. You aren't responsible nor are the people of China since they have no say as to what the policy of the party is and therefore, the policy of China.
As to what that sort of government this has produced for the Chinese you might want to explore (with great care) the policies of the party during the Great Leap Forward when 20 to 43 million people were killed and the Cultural Revolution when upwards of 20 million were murdered in an effort to "cleanse" China of capitalist and western ideas of human dignity.
That is also part of your recent history which makes the military expansion of China of such concern. If the Chinese government can accept the killing of tens of millions of their own people in pursuit of their ideology, the prospects for non-Chinese in the future is particularly disturbing.
Mingham先生，我不是在侮辱中国，我只不过在表述CCP在以中国的名义追求着什么。如果你在中国，你当然不能对CCP做什么说什么。你和中国的人民都是不负责任的，因为他们对党的政策没有发言权，所以对中国的政策也没有发言权。
至于这为中国人制造了怎样的政府，你可能要（非常小心地）查查你们的党在大跃进以及文革时期的政策，前者害死了两千至四千三百万人，后者多达两千万人在中国清洗资本主义和西方关于人的尊严的思想时被谋杀了。
这也是你的近代史的一部分，正是中国的近代史让中国军队的扩张如此让人关注。如果中国政府能承认在追求他们的意识形态时杀了千万同胞，非中国人在将来的前景尤其令人不安。
Doug Ritchie replied:
I think most Americans are typically impressed by the Chinese people and have very high opinions of their culture, work-ethic, and especially their food, judging by take-out order volume. It is only American, however, to be wary of their political system and their style of government, and that's why a military threat from China is seen as a bit of a concern. The balance of power today is such that both nations maintain their sovereignty and ability to grow and compete. It isn't immediately clear to everyone that this would remain true should that balance shift.
我认为大多数美国人都会对中国人留下深刻印象，对他们的文化、吃苦耐劳的品质、尤其是他们的食品有很高评价，看看中国菜的外卖订单数量。然而只有美国人要小心他们的政治制度和政府的形态，这就是为什么人们会关注来自中国的军事威胁。现在国与国之间力量的均衡是指两国都能保持自己的主权完整和保护自己发展和竞争的能力。可能并不是每个人都会马上明白，就算在均衡被打破的时候，这个道理仍然成立。
Tony Carlos replied:
So Obama's "socialist policies" are going to ruin us? If that's the case, then all we need do is wait out China, for they are doomed to colapse. They are a far more socialist country than we'll ever be, with central planning the basis of their economy. If it's going to kill us, it'll surely kill them first.
Sorry Gerard, but you can't have it both ways.
所以奥巴马的“社会主义政策”将要毁灭我们？如果是真的话，那么我们要做的只是等待中国自我毁灭，因为他们注定会崩溃。由中央规划他们的基本经济政策，他们是一个比我们有可能成为的还要社会主义得多的国家。如果社会主义将要杀死我们，它当然会先杀死他们。
对不起Gerard，但你不能自圆其说。
Gerard Muller replied:
You forget one itsy bitsy little point which is that in China they can control wages, supply, prices..., just about everything. It takes that kind of totalitarian effort to make "socialism" work, at least for awhile. That's why little Tommy Friedman in a NYT column wished that Obama could have that sort of power for just one day...one day! Of course, if that one day "works out" by Tommy's assessment, then maybe two and soon........
你忘记了一个细微细小的细节，那就是在中国他们能控制工资、供应、价格等等等，他们就是能控制一切。只有这种极权行为才能让“社会主义”运转起来哪怕至少一刻钟。这就是为什么弗里德曼在纽时专栏希望奥巴马能拥有这种权力哪怕仅仅一天…一天！当然，如果这样的一天如弗里德曼所言“运转起来”，那么可能会有第二天然后很快…
Dan Nguyen replied:
Tony,
What do you know about socialism? Almost nothing in America is associated with socialism. If you want to see some of the socialism, look to North Korea, Cuba...
Tony，
你知道社会主义什么呢？美国几乎没有东西是和社会主义有关系的。如果你想看社会主义国家，看看朝鲜，古巴…
MATTHEW SANGER replied:
a president that leads a party that wants the US to adopt pacifist and socialist policies that Europe pioneered in the 50s and 60s
what a stupid comment. Please link us to where any us president has embraced pacifism
“它的总统所率领的政党想美国采纳和平主义和社会主义的政策，这些政策是欧洲在上世纪50年代和60年代作为先驱最先尝试过的”
多愚蠢的评论。请告诉我们任一个拥抱和平主义的美国总统的时代。
Gerard Muller replied:
Sure, glad to help out.
Let's see, we had Wilson and Carter, of course, in a ddition to The One.
Be careful about calling people stupid when you yourself are so ignorant of the facts.
可以，很高兴可以帮到你。
让我们看看，我们有威尔逊和卡特，当然，除了上帝之外。
小心说别人愚蠢，当你自己对事实一无所知的时候。
Karl Wright replied:
"What is happening is that China is changing its role from that of an inward looking country to one of a classical expansionist communist dictatorship, a la Stalin's Russia. The difference being that China apparently believes that its economic strenght coupled with its repressive totalitarian state will succeed where Russia failed. "
Indeed. I've argued the same point repeatedly. People have been pooh-poohing this concern and saying how third-rate China's military is. Well, I don't buy it - it seems clear that certain elements in China have decided to (at the very least) settle the Taiwan question in the very near future, and more broadly, fix the Korean problem too (by finishing the Korean War).
The Chinese have every advantage here in the fact that they are very close to the theatre of operations, and we are very far away. I think we have two choices: (a) discontinue any committment we currently have to defend Taiwan and SK, or (b) ramp up our military presence and capabilities in the region.
“目前正在发生的是，中国正改变它过去只考虑国内情况的角色，变成一个典型的共产主义独裁的扩张分子，就像斯大林时期的俄罗斯一样。区别在于中国明显相信它的经济实力加上它高压下的极权统治会在俄罗斯跌倒的地方爬起来。”
事实上，我反复在提同样的观点。人们正对这个问题嗤之以鼻，说什么中国的军队只是第三档次的。嘛，我不这样认为——似乎很明显，中国因为某个原因，决定（最迟）也要在不久的将来解决台湾问题，及更广泛的朝鲜半岛问题（通过结束朝鲜战争）。
中国人占据了所有优势，因为他们很接近这个战区，而我们离它很远。我认为我们有两个选择：1、不再继续我们现在对保护台湾和韩国的承诺，或者2、迅速提升我们在该地区的军事存在和军事能力。
Andy Chow wrote:
Shouldn’t the Chinese be ashamed when they swallow so many insults?
US carriers are routinely roaming Chinese waters (which they claim international waters); US mapping ships are mapping every corner of Chinese sea floors and blaming Chinese fishing boats for harassment; US spy aircrafts routinely visit Chinese borders and even run into a Chinese plane and killed a Chinese pilot over Chinese waters; US companies are frequently selling advanced weapons to Taiwan; and US “accidentally” dropped 3 bombs into Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia; and US backs Japan’s claim over a Chinese island (precisely, it belongs to Taiwan).
And yet, US complain about Chinese threat with a gun pointing to China’s head?
How would you feel if China is doing the same to the US?
中国人不应该感到惭愧吗？他们吞下了如此多的指责。
美国航母定期在中国海域散步（这个中国海域他们宣称是国际海域）；美国的测量船正在测量中国海床的每个角落，并指责中国的渔船常常骚扰他们；美国的间谍飞机定期拜访中国边境，甚至和中国的一架飞机相撞，在中国领海上空杀死了一名中国飞行员；美国的公司经常向台湾出售先进的武器；美国“偶然地”在中国驻南斯拉夫大使馆投下了3枚炸弹；美国支持日本对中国一个小岛宣称拥有主权（准确来说，这个岛属于台湾）。
哈，美国用枪指着中国的头抱怨中国威胁？
如果中国对美国做同样的事情，你们感想如何？
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"How would you feel if China is doing the same to the US?"
A question too many "pundits" cannot answer.
“如果中国对美国做同样的事情，你们感想如何？”
这个问题有太多“专家”回答不了。
Gerard Muller replied:
The problem with China, since 1948, is that it is a ruthless state that murders all those who resist it and has an ambition to spread its power throughout Asia in order to enslave others.
Given the threat to civilization that China presents it is not only appropriate but crucial that the US do whatever is necessary to monitor Chinese activities which still pales in comparison to the outright thievery through the Cyberwarfare that they have been conducting and continue to conduct in the US and the West.
The issue now is at what point does the attraction of China as a marketplace become overshadowed by the military threat it represents. When that point comes, war is a real possibility.
自1948年以来中国的问题是它是一个残忍的国家，谋杀了所有反对它的人，并拥有雄心壮志，试图在全亚洲扩张它的势力，以便奴役其他人。
考虑到中国展示出来的它对文明的威胁，美国采取一切必要措施来监控中国的活动是正确而至关重要的。在和中国的网络盗版这个十足的盗贼行为相比，我们的监控仍然感到汗颜。网络盗版是中国人正在实施的网络战争，他们还将继续在美国和西方实施。
现在的问题是什么时候中国作为一个市场的吸引力不如它所散发出来的军事威胁。到了那时候，战争就真的可能发生了。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"...has an ambition to spread its power throughout Asia in order to enslave others."
Please list examples post-1978 of this "ambition."
“拥有雄心壮志，试图在全亚洲扩张它的势力，以便奴役其他人。”
请列举1978年之后的事例来证明中国有这个“雄心”。
carl chen replied:
you seem to know how to do simple arithmatics but your jealousy and racist thinking have cancealled out even that bit of intelligence. pity
你似乎懂得怎样做简单的算术题，但你的嫉妒和种族主义的观念把那一丁点可取之处也清除完毕。可惜。
David Lane replied:
@Pappeln: Invasion of Vietnam, 1979. Obscenely large losses humilaited the PLA
回Pappeln：在1979年对越南的侵略。如此巨大的失败，是PLA的耻辱。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
David, I thought you'd bring up the brief Sino-Vietnamese War. Are you forgetting that what prompted the conflict was Vietnam's INVASION and OCCUPATION of Cambodia? And who did we support in the Vietnam-Cambodia War? Hint: Not the nation that humiliated us in 1975.
David，我想你说的是那场短暂的中越之战。你忘记了促使这场冲突的是越南对柬埔寨的入侵和占领吗？而我们在越柬之战中支持哪一方？提示：不是那个在1975年羞辱了我们的国家。
Karl Wright replied:
"US carriers are routinely roaming Chinese waters (which they claim international waters); "
Uh, no. China disputes the international definition of international waters. That's a unilateral stand. The U.S. makes no such stand in its territorial waters. Why do the Chinese insist on being a law unto themselves?
“美国航母定期在中国海域散步（这个中国海域他们宣称是国际海域）。”
额，不，中国搞错了国际海域的国际定义。这是站在美国这边的立场说的。美国在自己的领海就不会说国际海域。为什么中国人坚持认为他们自己也要按美国那样说呢？
Karl Wright replied:
"US companies are frequently selling advanced weapons to Taiwan"
Yes, because China's whole posture toward Taiwan is quite threatening. The U.S. has agreed to support reunification, but only on peaceful terms.
“美国的公司经常向台湾出售先进的武器”
是的，因为中国对台湾的整个姿态相当威吓人。美国同意台湾回归，但必须是以和平的方式。
Karl Wright replied:
"US spy aircrafts routinely visit Chinese borders and even run into a Chinese plane and killed a Chinese pilot over Chinese waters"
There's strong disagreement that any incident has taken place over Chinese waters. There is consensus, in fact, that the Chinese pilot's navigation was in error.
Flying intelligence missions near other countries is (a) lawful, and (b) necessary. It is no accident that almost all bilateral arms control treaties the U.S. has signed have a verification component. The main reason is that such clauses remove the capability of a surprise attack, and thus tend to reduce tensions.
The purpose of intelligence is not to threaten, but to assess risk. Limiting that activity would force the U.S. to invest much more heavily in defensive weaponry, and sell more to Taiwan too.
“美国的间谍飞机定期拜访中国边境，甚至和中国的一架飞机相撞，在中国领海上空杀死了一名中国飞行员”
在中国领海上空发生的任何事件都会有巨大的争议。有人认为，事实上，那个中国飞行员的导航系统出了差错。
在靠近其他国家的地方用飞机侦探情报是一、合法，二、合理的。几乎所有美国签订的对军备控制双边条约都包含有检验核实的内容，这并不是偶然。主要是因为这样的条款会去除双方突然袭击的能力，从而会减少人们的紧张感。
侦探情报的目的不是威胁，而是评估风险。限制侦探活动会迫使美国在国防武器上投资更多钱，并对台湾出售更多武器。
Dmitry Louzin wrote:
This aircraft is substantially bigger in size in comparison with US’s F22 and Russia’s T50. In terms of nuts and bolts, the Chinese sacrificed maneuverability in favor of potential bomb load. This is more a bomber than a fighter.
这架飞机在体型上和美国的F22和俄罗斯的T50相比已经足够大了。具体到细节上，中国牺牲了机动性来提高可载弹量。
这更像是一架轰炸机，而不是战斗机。
Jed Springfield wrote:
Photoshop.
PS的。
Darragh Scully wrote:
F22 - 180 million (only sold in America)
F35 130 million
Sukhoi PAK FA 100 million
J 20 50 million (only 2 in stock)
F22——1亿8千万（只卖给美国）
F35——1亿3千万
T50——1亿
J20——5千万（存货2架）
Doug Ritchie replied:
I'm willing to bet you've got them correctly listed in order of capability, too.
我打赌按战斗力排也成立。
ROLAND GONG wrote:
Major China news agency admitted China weaponry system was far behind US's, at least 20-30 years (latest news released during Gates' visit). I have never seen US broadcast that. Did the defense company like to request more money from congress?
中国一家大型的通讯社承认中国的武器系统远远落后于美国，至少差20到30年吧（在盖茨访华过程中所披露的最新消息）。我看不到美国媒体的报道。国防公司想向议会要更多钱吗？
Bryan Smith replied:
Nope, the U.S. military is cutting back. Pretty soon, there will only be one Army Sergeant, one Air Force Airman, and one Sailor, all sitting at video screens with a joy stick...
They will be waiting for dialup to get on line, then the power will go out...
不，美国正在裁军。很快只会有一个陆军中士，一个空军士兵，和一个航海员，这三个人都坐在电视屏幕前，手里拿着游戏杆…
他们在等待拨号上网，然后，没电了…
Edwin White wrote:
Ahh, the thieves in China have plagiarized and stolen their way to stealth technology. This J-20 is almost an exact replica of the US F-22 (which we developed over 25 years ago. The Chinese couldn't even design a Mig-15, yet they magically do stealth technology on their own? Hah. Plagiarism is never impressive, especially when the entire world know it came from China--land of cowards living on their knees--afraid to rise up and fight their own repressive dictators for centuries on end. Free people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
啊，中国的小偷按他们的惯常做法剽窃并盗取了隐形技术。这架J20几乎是美国F22的复制品。我们早于25年前就已经研发出F22。中国人甚至不能设计一架米格15，但他们奇迹般地在他们的飞机上应用了隐形技术？哈。人们总不会记住别人剽窃过他们，尤其是当全世界都知道这个剽窃行为是来自中国——这个跪着过活的懦夫国家——他们几个世纪以来都不敢站起来和他们压制人民的独裁者战斗。自由人民宁愿躺着死也不要跪着活。
Chris Georgandellis replied:
It flies pal. Can it evade radar? Can it provide advance cover for stealth bomber incursions? Can it evade SAM missiles and ground based radars?
I'd be just as shocked if China released a version of the Porsche 911 Turbo, and called it the Dongfeng Motors J11 Forced-Induction sports car.
它飞起来了伙计。但它能逃避雷达跟踪吗？有先进的外表来为这架隐形轰炸机进行突袭吗？能躲过地对空导弹和地基雷达吗？
如果中国发布了另一个版本的保时捷911 Turbo，并为其取名为东风汽车J11强制增压进气跑车，我会感到同样震惊。
Doug Ritchie replied:
If you do consider China an adversary, you should definitely have more respect for their ability to compete. There's no point in underestimating them, and I can guarantee that they have talent, motivation, and money in their defense labs. This is definitely not a copy of the F-22 based on structure and size alone. It may really be a terrible aircraft, but it wouldn't be very wise to simply assume so.
如果你真的视中国为对手，毫无疑问你就应该更尊重他们的竞争力。低估他们完全没好处，我可以保证他们的国防实验室里有人才，有决心，有金钱。这架飞机绝对不会是F22的复制品，单单就其结构和尺寸大小而言。它可能真的会是一架可怕的飞机，但妄下断论并不明智。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"...afraid to rise up and fight their own repressive dictators for centuries on end."
Google Zhu Yuanzhang and Sun Yat-sen.
“他们几个世纪以来都不敢站起来和他们压制人民的独裁者战斗”
麻烦google一下朱元璋和孙逸仙是谁。
Tony Carlos wrote:
So what will be said by all those posters who last week told us that the spy shots were of a non-functional prototype? Anyone here eating any crow?
那些上星期发帖说J20的谍照不过是一架没有任何功能的原型机的人，现在要说什么？这里有人道歉吗？
TIMOTHY BARNES wrote:
The Chinese are flaunting their newfound muscle while Gates is visiting. They are undoubtably challenging Obama. Apparently they know a pansy when they see one.
中国人在盖茨访华的时候炫耀他们新练出来的肌肉。他们毫无疑问在挑衅奥巴马。很明显看到基佬的时候他们一眼就能认出来。*
*：这里是在说中美都是同一类人（基佬）么？
ROLAND GONG replied:
How do think US aircraft conveyed near Beijing 200 miles away? Just a month ago. Do you want Chinese just swallow it, or beat it.
你认为美国一架飞机在一个月前飞到距离北京仅200英里远的地方，是美国在传递什么信息？你想中国人忍了，还是把它打下来。
Stephen Borsher wrote:
So, will China fly those fighters over North Korea or sell those fighters to North Korea. The answer to that question will speak volumes about China as a world power going forward.
所以，中国会让这些战斗机在朝鲜上空翱翔，还是把这些战斗机卖给朝鲜？这个问题的答案会显示出中国作为全球的一个强权将来的许多动向。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
Do you consider China an imperialist nation?
你认为中国是一个帝国主义国家吗？
Stephen Borsher replied:
That is what I meant. What they do will tell US what they are. They are in flux and need to make that decision about themselves before we can make that decision. I don't throw labels around lightly; in fact I hardly ever use them because they never describe the entire picture. I describe things in long-hand. China does not appear to have (m)any Imperialistic properties right now; but as they become more like the USA in capitalism and (former) power, they probably will, as they will have more to protect. And, IMO, they certainly don't want North Korea spoiling their new found "fun".
这就是我想说的。他们做什么会告诉美国他们是什么。他们处于不断的变化当中，需要决定自己的身份了，之后我们才能做出相应的对策。我不会乱贴标签，事实上，我几乎从来不这样做，因为标签从来不会描述出全部的情况。我会详细把事情的全貌描述出来。中国目前看上去没有任何帝国主义的属性，但随着他们变得更像美国的一个资本主义（前）强权国家，他们很可能会走上帝国主义的道路，因为他们会有更多需要保护的东西。并且，依我所见，他们当然不会让朝鲜糟蹋他们新找到的“乐子”。
Let's see if we have this straight: China is bad because they are a dictatorship. But our government is at fault because they allowed our corporations to move manufacturing offshore. So if our government was more dictatorial, and stopped any offshoring, you'd be happier?
看看我们是否直接得出这个结论：中国是不好的，因为他们是个专制国家。但我们的政府错了，因为他们允许我们的公司把制造业外包出去。所以如果我们的政府更专制点，阻止任何外包活动，你会觉得更开心？
Justin Murray wrote:
Is it me, or does that photograph look like they just Photoshopped the jet in the air?
只有我觉得这张照片是他们把飞机ps上去的吗？
Mike Zhang replied:
I believe it's PS. See the engines: the engines are cold while the plane is rising.
I guess the media run out of pictures to sustain this round of news cooking.
我相信它是PS过的。看看发动机：在飞机起飞时发动机是冷的。
我猜那些媒体为了准备这轮新闻大餐把图片都用光了。
Mingham Liu replied:
Zhang? You really believe it's PS? so why dont you chanllenge that Mr Gates had admitted that Chairman Hu conceded him that J-20 has finished her test flight? Next time search more evidence to support your guess and thank you !
张？你真的相信它是ps的？那么为什么你不怀疑一下盖茨承认胡core向他透露了J20完成试飞的报道？下次百度更多证据来支持你的臆测，谢谢！
Justin Murray replied:
It wouldn't be the first time the Chinese PM lied about something. There's a distinct lack of air distortion around the engine ports to indicate it's actually doing anything.
中国的公众媒体撒谎又不是第一次。发动机端口附近明显没有空气扭曲现象来证明它正在运转。
Mike Zhang replied:
Justin: Exactly. It's a problem of the reporter's selection, though. There have been many PSed or created pictures of J-20. Only a small collection look authentic. As for this one, the trace of PS is too obvious.
Mingham Liu: You got overly excited over educated comments. Please learn some basics of digital photography. Thank you.
Justin：是的，这是媒体选择的照片的问题。有许多PS过或者凭空捏造的J20照片。只有小部分看上去是真实的。对于这张照片，PS的痕迹太明显了。
Mingham Liu：你总是爱叫人多学习啊。那么请你学习一下数码拍照的基础知识。谢谢。
H. Edwin Hall wrote:
Does it have GE's avionics in it?
它里面有通用的航空设备吗？
JERRY MORIARTY replied:
Yes,part of the public/private partnership.It's ok,Clinton approved the selling of high technology to China.
有的，这是通用公开或私底下参与了这个项目的部分内容。没问题，克林顿同意了向中国卖高端技术嘛。
Tony Carlos replied:
And Nixon opened China to the west in the first place.
首先要感谢尼克松把中国开放给西方。
MATTHEW SANGER replied:
If it doesn't, I'm sure it will when GE signs up for a joint venture. I assume the "joint" is a referrence to what you have to be smoking to share your technology with these guys.
就算通用原来没卖高端技术给中国，我肯定当通用在一家合资公司的协议书上签字后，它会这样做。我认为所谓“合资”指的是你要和某某分享你的技术时不得不放的烟幕。
JULIAN GAMMON III replied:
As I recall President Bill Clinton has already shared sensitive technology with the Chinese during his first term. We a reaping what he has sown.
我回忆了一下，比尔·克林顿总统在他的第一个任期就已经和中国人分享敏感技术了。我们正收获他当初种下的恶果。
Gerard Muller wrote:
China is obviously developing the capability to militarily challenge the US in the western Pacific in much the same way that the Japanese did in the 20s and 30s.
Using copied technology (they have a limited capability to develop anything on their own) they are launching an aircraft carrier, are threatening US carriers with maneuverable satellite controlled ballistic missiles and now a stealth fighter.
All these events have led to the meeting with the SecDef where China is openly warning the US that if it aids Taiwan in maintaining their democracy, against the intent of China to bring it back under its communist control,
there will be serious repurcussions. That is a departure from the past and does not bode well for future relations with China, the active supporter of North Korea and Iran.
What is happening is that China is changing its role from that of an inward looking country to one of a classical expansionist communist dictatorship, a la Stalin's Russia. The difference being that China apparently believes that its economic strenght coupled with its repressive totalitarian state will succeed where Russia failed.
So now the US is faced with two clearly defined threats, the ongoing unconvential terrorist threat that is coupled with the Afhan war and a rising militarist Chinese threat.
This is coming at a time when the US is under enormous economic stress with a president that leads a party that wants the US to adopt pacifist and socialist policies that Europe pioneered in the 50s and 60s but is now withdrawing from because it is ruining them.
All these things coming together as they have is not likley to end well...at least for democracies.
中国明显正在发展它的军事力量来挑战美国在西太平洋的地位，就像日本在20世纪20至30年代所做的那样。
通过复制别人的技术（他们能力有限，发展不出自己的东东），他们正要让一首航母下水，用高机动性的卫星控制的导弹威胁美国的航母，而现在是一架隐形战斗机。
所有这些事件最终促使了国防部长的访华，而在他访华过程中，中国公开警告美国，如果它帮助台湾维持他们的民主政体，违反中国把它收回来置于共产主义控制之下的意愿，将会产生严重的恶果。中国，这个朝鲜和伊朗积极的支持分子，已经和过去的中国说再见了，对美国将来的对华关系来说不是一个吉兆。
目前正在发生的是，中国正改变它过去只考虑国内情况的角色，变成一个典型的共产主义独裁的扩张分子，就像斯大林时期的俄罗斯一样。区别在于中国明显相信它的经济实力加上它高压下的极权统治会在俄罗斯跌倒的地方爬起来。
所以现在美国面临两个明确的威胁，一个是正在进行的非常规恐怖主义威胁和与之相关的阿富汗战争，另一个是正在崛起的军国主义中国的威胁。
这些威胁有朝一日终会来临，因为美国目前正面临巨大的经济压力，而它的总统所率领的政党想美国采纳和平主义和社会主义的政策，这些政策是欧洲在上世纪50年代和60年代作为先驱最先尝试过的，但欧洲现在正摒弃它们，因为这些政策正在毁灭他们。
所有这些事情都集中在一起了，不可能会善终的，至少对于民主国家来说。
Darragh Scully replied:
So now that they have this Jet we need more than just a Missile shield.
"Russian VHF counter
stealth radars proliferate
Dr Carlo Kopp"
Check that out. This situation is starting to remind me about the Irish Potatoe Famine (so called that is).
If not for that what Might Boston, Chicago and New York have ended up like...
Erin Go Bragh.
Just so there is no mis interpretation what I am saying is that the downed plane might be a blessing in disguise. this system may be able to be developed and used in conjunction with laser weapons and a missile shield to successfully counter any Chinese Threats. Its a big if though, but its all ive got. lol
Just wondering if when NASA does Teraform Mars, will the Chinese be Welcome there?
所以既然他们拥有这架飞机，我们需要的就不止是一个导弹防御系统了。
“俄罗斯的高频反隐形雷达量产了。——卡罗科普博士*”
看看是不是这样吧。现在的情况开始让我想起爱尔兰的马铃薯饥荒了（它就是这样叫的）。
如果不是这样的话，波士顿、芝加哥和纽约最终可能会变成咋样…
永远效忠于爱尔兰。**
所以我的理解是没错的，我的意思是这架从天而降的飞机可能会让我们因祸得福。我们的导弹防御系统可能会升级，和激光武器结合起来使用，来成功抵御任何中国的威胁。这会是一个巨大的系统如果最终建成的话，但它是我所能想到的唯一的对付中国的方法，嘻嘻。
想知道如果NASA最终完成了火星改造计划，中国人是否会在那里受到欢迎。
*：澳大利亚的航空专业人士。
**：Erin Go Bragh是爱尔兰盖尔语，大概意思是“Ireland forever”。
Mingham Liu replied:
Gerard,I am really sorry to see your comments, cause you seem to know nothing about China, here , I ,a somehow standard Chinese insist that you have to spend part of your life there, in order to get a more comprehensive view and deeper understanding of Chinese history and culture, and the overall attitude of our people to USA and the whole world, in my opinion, until then you have no right to do any irresponsible insult to China, my homeland. May your god bless you !
Gerard，看到你的回复我真的感到遗憾，因为你似乎对中国一无所知。这里，我，一个标准的中国人，还是坚持认为你要在中国度过你人生的一部分时光来更全面更深入地了解中国的历史、文化和我们的人民对美国及全球的总体态度。在我看来，直至那时为止，你都没资格不负责任地侮辱我的祖国中国。祝愿你的上帝会保佑你！
Bryan Smith replied:
For Mingham,
Better take a closer look at your military. The U.S. military hold no illusions about China's military. Mr. Muller is correct, and is not disparaging the Chinese culture or the people that live there, just the Chinese military.
The Chinese government has made no bones about wanting Taiwan back into the fold. One day, when China feels that it is strong enough, it will insist that Taiwan come back, and when it refuses, it will take it back.
To think otherwise...is fool hardy.
And I thought the Chinese did not like religion, or believe in Gods? Better check the “I Ching” for direction.
Sincerely, Bryan Smith.
May your days be filled in reflection.
回Mingham，
你最好多了解你的军队。美国的军队对中国军队没有任何偏见。Muller先生是对的，没有贬低中国文化和住在那里的人民，他仅仅针对中国军队。
中国政府从不遮掩它想收复台湾的决心。有朝一日中国觉得它足够强大了，它会要求台湾回归，而若台湾拒绝，它会把它收回去。
从另外的角度看，这是有勇无谋的。
另外我以为中国人不喜欢宗教，他们不信上帝？最好查查易经为你找准方向。
谨启，Bryan Smith
希望你每天都能多反思。
Dave Peterson replied:
Personally, Mingham, I hope Gerard is wrong, but we can't assume that he is wrong. I don't think that there is any precedent for the current military build up in China, so the understanding of China's history and even culture (given the huge cultural changes that are now occurring there) seem very irrelevant to me.
个人而言，Mingham，我希望Gerard是错的，但我们不能假设他是错的。
我不认为当前在中国建立起来的军队在过去有什么范例可供借鉴，所以对中国历史甚至文化（考虑到现在中国的文化正发生剧变）的了解对我来说似乎和中国的军队没什么关系。
Gerard Muller replied:
Mr. Mingham I am not insulting China, I am simply relating what the Communist Party in China is pursueing in the name of China. If you are in China you of course have no say as to what the party does. You aren't responsible nor are the people of China since they have no say as to what the policy of the party is and therefore, the policy of China.
As to what that sort of government this has produced for the Chinese you might want to explore (with great care) the policies of the party during the Great Leap Forward when 20 to 43 million people were killed and the Cultural Revolution when upwards of 20 million were murdered in an effort to "cleanse" China of capitalist and western ideas of human dignity.
That is also part of your recent history which makes the military expansion of China of such concern. If the Chinese government can accept the killing of tens of millions of their own people in pursuit of their ideology, the prospects for non-Chinese in the future is particularly disturbing.
Mingham先生，我不是在侮辱中国，我只不过在表述CCP在以中国的名义追求着什么。如果你在中国，你当然不能对CCP做什么说什么。你和中国的人民都是不负责任的，因为他们对党的政策没有发言权，所以对中国的政策也没有发言权。
至于这为中国人制造了怎样的政府，你可能要（非常小心地）查查你们的党在大跃进以及文革时期的政策，前者害死了两千至四千三百万人，后者多达两千万人在中国清洗资本主义和西方关于人的尊严的思想时被谋杀了。
这也是你的近代史的一部分，正是中国的近代史让中国军队的扩张如此让人关注。如果中国政府能承认在追求他们的意识形态时杀了千万同胞，非中国人在将来的前景尤其令人不安。
Doug Ritchie replied:
I think most Americans are typically impressed by the Chinese people and have very high opinions of their culture, work-ethic, and especially their food, judging by take-out order volume. It is only American, however, to be wary of their political system and their style of government, and that's why a military threat from China is seen as a bit of a concern. The balance of power today is such that both nations maintain their sovereignty and ability to grow and compete. It isn't immediately clear to everyone that this would remain true should that balance shift.
我认为大多数美国人都会对中国人留下深刻印象，对他们的文化、吃苦耐劳的品质、尤其是他们的食品有很高评价，看看中国菜的外卖订单数量。然而只有美国人要小心他们的政治制度和政府的形态，这就是为什么人们会关注来自中国的军事威胁。现在国与国之间力量的均衡是指两国都能保持自己的主权完整和保护自己发展和竞争的能力。可能并不是每个人都会马上明白，就算在均衡被打破的时候，这个道理仍然成立。
Tony Carlos replied:
So Obama's "socialist policies" are going to ruin us? If that's the case, then all we need do is wait out China, for they are doomed to colapse. They are a far more socialist country than we'll ever be, with central planning the basis of their economy. If it's going to kill us, it'll surely kill them first.
Sorry Gerard, but you can't have it both ways.
所以奥巴马的“社会主义政策”将要毁灭我们？如果是真的话，那么我们要做的只是等待中国自我毁灭，因为他们注定会崩溃。由中央规划他们的基本经济政策，他们是一个比我们有可能成为的还要社会主义得多的国家。如果社会主义将要杀死我们，它当然会先杀死他们。
对不起Gerard，但你不能自圆其说。
Gerard Muller replied:
You forget one itsy bitsy little point which is that in China they can control wages, supply, prices..., just about everything. It takes that kind of totalitarian effort to make "socialism" work, at least for awhile. That's why little Tommy Friedman in a NYT column wished that Obama could have that sort of power for just one day...one day! Of course, if that one day "works out" by Tommy's assessment, then maybe two and soon........
你忘记了一个细微细小的细节，那就是在中国他们能控制工资、供应、价格等等等，他们就是能控制一切。只有这种极权行为才能让“社会主义”运转起来哪怕至少一刻钟。这就是为什么弗里德曼在纽时专栏希望奥巴马能拥有这种权力哪怕仅仅一天…一天！当然，如果这样的一天如弗里德曼所言“运转起来”，那么可能会有第二天然后很快…
Dan Nguyen replied:
Tony,
What do you know about socialism? Almost nothing in America is associated with socialism. If you want to see some of the socialism, look to North Korea, Cuba...
Tony，
你知道社会主义什么呢？美国几乎没有东西是和社会主义有关系的。如果你想看社会主义国家，看看朝鲜，古巴…
MATTHEW SANGER replied:
a president that leads a party that wants the US to adopt pacifist and socialist policies that Europe pioneered in the 50s and 60s
what a stupid comment. Please link us to where any us president has embraced pacifism
“它的总统所率领的政党想美国采纳和平主义和社会主义的政策，这些政策是欧洲在上世纪50年代和60年代作为先驱最先尝试过的”
多愚蠢的评论。请告诉我们任一个拥抱和平主义的美国总统的时代。
Gerard Muller replied:
Sure, glad to help out.
Let's see, we had Wilson and Carter, of course, in a ddition to The One.
Be careful about calling people stupid when you yourself are so ignorant of the facts.
可以，很高兴可以帮到你。
让我们看看，我们有威尔逊和卡特，当然，除了上帝之外。
小心说别人愚蠢，当你自己对事实一无所知的时候。
Karl Wright replied:
"What is happening is that China is changing its role from that of an inward looking country to one of a classical expansionist communist dictatorship, a la Stalin's Russia. The difference being that China apparently believes that its economic strenght coupled with its repressive totalitarian state will succeed where Russia failed. "
Indeed. I've argued the same point repeatedly. People have been pooh-poohing this concern and saying how third-rate China's military is. Well, I don't buy it - it seems clear that certain elements in China have decided to (at the very least) settle the Taiwan question in the very near future, and more broadly, fix the Korean problem too (by finishing the Korean War).
The Chinese have every advantage here in the fact that they are very close to the theatre of operations, and we are very far away. I think we have two choices: (a) discontinue any committment we currently have to defend Taiwan and SK, or (b) ramp up our military presence and capabilities in the region.
“目前正在发生的是，中国正改变它过去只考虑国内情况的角色，变成一个典型的共产主义独裁的扩张分子，就像斯大林时期的俄罗斯一样。区别在于中国明显相信它的经济实力加上它高压下的极权统治会在俄罗斯跌倒的地方爬起来。”
事实上，我反复在提同样的观点。人们正对这个问题嗤之以鼻，说什么中国的军队只是第三档次的。嘛，我不这样认为——似乎很明显，中国因为某个原因，决定（最迟）也要在不久的将来解决台湾问题，及更广泛的朝鲜半岛问题（通过结束朝鲜战争）。
中国人占据了所有优势，因为他们很接近这个战区，而我们离它很远。我认为我们有两个选择：1、不再继续我们现在对保护台湾和韩国的承诺，或者2、迅速提升我们在该地区的军事存在和军事能力。
Andy Chow wrote:
Shouldn’t the Chinese be ashamed when they swallow so many insults?
US carriers are routinely roaming Chinese waters (which they claim international waters); US mapping ships are mapping every corner of Chinese sea floors and blaming Chinese fishing boats for harassment; US spy aircrafts routinely visit Chinese borders and even run into a Chinese plane and killed a Chinese pilot over Chinese waters; US companies are frequently selling advanced weapons to Taiwan; and US “accidentally” dropped 3 bombs into Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia; and US backs Japan’s claim over a Chinese island (precisely, it belongs to Taiwan).
And yet, US complain about Chinese threat with a gun pointing to China’s head?
How would you feel if China is doing the same to the US?
中国人不应该感到惭愧吗？他们吞下了如此多的指责。
美国航母定期在中国海域散步（这个中国海域他们宣称是国际海域）；美国的测量船正在测量中国海床的每个角落，并指责中国的渔船常常骚扰他们；美国的间谍飞机定期拜访中国边境，甚至和中国的一架飞机相撞，在中国领海上空杀死了一名中国飞行员；美国的公司经常向台湾出售先进的武器；美国“偶然地”在中国驻南斯拉夫大使馆投下了3枚炸弹；美国支持日本对中国一个小岛宣称拥有主权（准确来说，这个岛属于台湾）。
哈，美国用枪指着中国的头抱怨中国威胁？
如果中国对美国做同样的事情，你们感想如何？
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"How would you feel if China is doing the same to the US?"
A question too many "pundits" cannot answer.
“如果中国对美国做同样的事情，你们感想如何？”
这个问题有太多“专家”回答不了。
Gerard Muller replied:
The problem with China, since 1948, is that it is a ruthless state that murders all those who resist it and has an ambition to spread its power throughout Asia in order to enslave others.
Given the threat to civilization that China presents it is not only appropriate but crucial that the US do whatever is necessary to monitor Chinese activities which still pales in comparison to the outright thievery through the Cyberwarfare that they have been conducting and continue to conduct in the US and the West.
The issue now is at what point does the attraction of China as a marketplace become overshadowed by the military threat it represents. When that point comes, war is a real possibility.
自1948年以来中国的问题是它是一个残忍的国家，谋杀了所有反对它的人，并拥有雄心壮志，试图在全亚洲扩张它的势力，以便奴役其他人。
考虑到中国展示出来的它对文明的威胁，美国采取一切必要措施来监控中国的活动是正确而至关重要的。在和中国的网络盗版这个十足的盗贼行为相比，我们的监控仍然感到汗颜。网络盗版是中国人正在实施的网络战争，他们还将继续在美国和西方实施。
现在的问题是什么时候中国作为一个市场的吸引力不如它所散发出来的军事威胁。到了那时候，战争就真的可能发生了。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"...has an ambition to spread its power throughout Asia in order to enslave others."
Please list examples post-1978 of this "ambition."
“拥有雄心壮志，试图在全亚洲扩张它的势力，以便奴役其他人。”
请列举1978年之后的事例来证明中国有这个“雄心”。
carl chen replied:
you seem to know how to do simple arithmatics but your jealousy and racist thinking have cancealled out even that bit of intelligence. pity
你似乎懂得怎样做简单的算术题，但你的嫉妒和种族主义的观念把那一丁点可取之处也清除完毕。可惜。
David Lane replied:
@Pappeln: Invasion of Vietnam, 1979. Obscenely large losses humilaited the PLA
回Pappeln：在1979年对越南的侵略。如此巨大的失败，是PLA的耻辱。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
David, I thought you'd bring up the brief Sino-Vietnamese War. Are you forgetting that what prompted the conflict was Vietnam's INVASION and OCCUPATION of Cambodia? And who did we support in the Vietnam-Cambodia War? Hint: Not the nation that humiliated us in 1975.
David，我想你说的是那场短暂的中越之战。你忘记了促使这场冲突的是越南对柬埔寨的入侵和占领吗？而我们在越柬之战中支持哪一方？提示：不是那个在1975年羞辱了我们的国家。
Karl Wright replied:
"US carriers are routinely roaming Chinese waters (which they claim international waters); "
Uh, no. China disputes the international definition of international waters. That's a unilateral stand. The U.S. makes no such stand in its territorial waters. Why do the Chinese insist on being a law unto themselves?
“美国航母定期在中国海域散步（这个中国海域他们宣称是国际海域）。”
额，不，中国搞错了国际海域的国际定义。这是站在美国这边的立场说的。美国在自己的领海就不会说国际海域。为什么中国人坚持认为他们自己也要按美国那样说呢？
Karl Wright replied:
"US companies are frequently selling advanced weapons to Taiwan"
Yes, because China's whole posture toward Taiwan is quite threatening. The U.S. has agreed to support reunification, but only on peaceful terms.
“美国的公司经常向台湾出售先进的武器”
是的，因为中国对台湾的整个姿态相当威吓人。美国同意台湾回归，但必须是以和平的方式。
Karl Wright replied:
"US spy aircrafts routinely visit Chinese borders and even run into a Chinese plane and killed a Chinese pilot over Chinese waters"
There's strong disagreement that any incident has taken place over Chinese waters. There is consensus, in fact, that the Chinese pilot's navigation was in error.
Flying intelligence missions near other countries is (a) lawful, and (b) necessary. It is no accident that almost all bilateral arms control treaties the U.S. has signed have a verification component. The main reason is that such clauses remove the capability of a surprise attack, and thus tend to reduce tensions.
The purpose of intelligence is not to threaten, but to assess risk. Limiting that activity would force the U.S. to invest much more heavily in defensive weaponry, and sell more to Taiwan too.
“美国的间谍飞机定期拜访中国边境，甚至和中国的一架飞机相撞，在中国领海上空杀死了一名中国飞行员”
在中国领海上空发生的任何事件都会有巨大的争议。有人认为，事实上，那个中国飞行员的导航系统出了差错。
在靠近其他国家的地方用飞机侦探情报是一、合法，二、合理的。几乎所有美国签订的对军备控制双边条约都包含有检验核实的内容，这并不是偶然。主要是因为这样的条款会去除双方突然袭击的能力，从而会减少人们的紧张感。
侦探情报的目的不是威胁，而是评估风险。限制侦探活动会迫使美国在国防武器上投资更多钱，并对台湾出售更多武器。
Dmitry Louzin wrote:
This aircraft is substantially bigger in size in comparison with US’s F22 and Russia’s T50. In terms of nuts and bolts, the Chinese sacrificed maneuverability in favor of potential bomb load. This is more a bomber than a fighter.
这架飞机在体型上和美国的F22和俄罗斯的T50相比已经足够大了。具体到细节上，中国牺牲了机动性来提高可载弹量。
这更像是一架轰炸机，而不是战斗机。
Jed Springfield wrote:
Photoshop.
PS的。
Darragh Scully wrote:
F22 - 180 million (only sold in America)
F35 130 million
Sukhoi PAK FA 100 million
J 20 50 million (only 2 in stock)
F22——1亿8千万（只卖给美国）
F35——1亿3千万
T50——1亿
J20——5千万（存货2架）
Doug Ritchie replied:
I'm willing to bet you've got them correctly listed in order of capability, too.
我打赌按战斗力排也成立。
ROLAND GONG wrote:
Major China news agency admitted China weaponry system was far behind US's, at least 20-30 years (latest news released during Gates' visit). I have never seen US broadcast that. Did the defense company like to request more money from congress?
中国一家大型的通讯社承认中国的武器系统远远落后于美国，至少差20到30年吧（在盖茨访华过程中所披露的最新消息）。我看不到美国媒体的报道。国防公司想向议会要更多钱吗？
Bryan Smith replied:
Nope, the U.S. military is cutting back. Pretty soon, there will only be one Army Sergeant, one Air Force Airman, and one Sailor, all sitting at video screens with a joy stick...
They will be waiting for dialup to get on line, then the power will go out...
不，美国正在裁军。很快只会有一个陆军中士，一个空军士兵，和一个航海员，这三个人都坐在电视屏幕前，手里拿着游戏杆…
他们在等待拨号上网，然后，没电了…
Edwin White wrote:
Ahh, the thieves in China have plagiarized and stolen their way to stealth technology. This J-20 is almost an exact replica of the US F-22 (which we developed over 25 years ago. The Chinese couldn't even design a Mig-15, yet they magically do stealth technology on their own? Hah. Plagiarism is never impressive, especially when the entire world know it came from China--land of cowards living on their knees--afraid to rise up and fight their own repressive dictators for centuries on end. Free people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
啊，中国的小偷按他们的惯常做法剽窃并盗取了隐形技术。这架J20几乎是美国F22的复制品。我们早于25年前就已经研发出F22。中国人甚至不能设计一架米格15，但他们奇迹般地在他们的飞机上应用了隐形技术？哈。人们总不会记住别人剽窃过他们，尤其是当全世界都知道这个剽窃行为是来自中国——这个跪着过活的懦夫国家——他们几个世纪以来都不敢站起来和他们压制人民的独裁者战斗。自由人民宁愿躺着死也不要跪着活。
Chris Georgandellis replied:
It flies pal. Can it evade radar? Can it provide advance cover for stealth bomber incursions? Can it evade SAM missiles and ground based radars?
I'd be just as shocked if China released a version of the Porsche 911 Turbo, and called it the Dongfeng Motors J11 Forced-Induction sports car.
它飞起来了伙计。但它能逃避雷达跟踪吗？有先进的外表来为这架隐形轰炸机进行突袭吗？能躲过地对空导弹和地基雷达吗？
如果中国发布了另一个版本的保时捷911 Turbo，并为其取名为东风汽车J11强制增压进气跑车，我会感到同样震惊。
Doug Ritchie replied:
If you do consider China an adversary, you should definitely have more respect for their ability to compete. There's no point in underestimating them, and I can guarantee that they have talent, motivation, and money in their defense labs. This is definitely not a copy of the F-22 based on structure and size alone. It may really be a terrible aircraft, but it wouldn't be very wise to simply assume so.
如果你真的视中国为对手，毫无疑问你就应该更尊重他们的竞争力。低估他们完全没好处，我可以保证他们的国防实验室里有人才，有决心，有金钱。这架飞机绝对不会是F22的复制品，单单就其结构和尺寸大小而言。它可能真的会是一架可怕的飞机，但妄下断论并不明智。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
"...afraid to rise up and fight their own repressive dictators for centuries on end."
Google Zhu Yuanzhang and Sun Yat-sen.
“他们几个世纪以来都不敢站起来和他们压制人民的独裁者战斗”
麻烦google一下朱元璋和孙逸仙是谁。
Tony Carlos wrote:
So what will be said by all those posters who last week told us that the spy shots were of a non-functional prototype? Anyone here eating any crow?
那些上星期发帖说J20的谍照不过是一架没有任何功能的原型机的人，现在要说什么？这里有人道歉吗？
TIMOTHY BARNES wrote:
The Chinese are flaunting their newfound muscle while Gates is visiting. They are undoubtably challenging Obama. Apparently they know a pansy when they see one.
中国人在盖茨访华的时候炫耀他们新练出来的肌肉。他们毫无疑问在挑衅奥巴马。很明显看到基佬的时候他们一眼就能认出来。*
*：这里是在说中美都是同一类人（基佬）么？
ROLAND GONG replied:
How do think US aircraft conveyed near Beijing 200 miles away? Just a month ago. Do you want Chinese just swallow it, or beat it.
你认为美国一架飞机在一个月前飞到距离北京仅200英里远的地方，是美国在传递什么信息？你想中国人忍了，还是把它打下来。
Stephen Borsher wrote:
So, will China fly those fighters over North Korea or sell those fighters to North Korea. The answer to that question will speak volumes about China as a world power going forward.
所以，中国会让这些战斗机在朝鲜上空翱翔，还是把这些战斗机卖给朝鲜？这个问题的答案会显示出中国作为全球的一个强权将来的许多动向。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
Do you consider China an imperialist nation?
你认为中国是一个帝国主义国家吗？
Stephen Borsher replied:
That is what I meant. What they do will tell US what they are. They are in flux and need to make that decision about themselves before we can make that decision. I don't throw labels around lightly; in fact I hardly ever use them because they never describe the entire picture. I describe things in long-hand. China does not appear to have (m)any Imperialistic properties right now; but as they become more like the USA in capitalism and (former) power, they probably will, as they will have more to protect. And, IMO, they certainly don't want North Korea spoiling their new found "fun".
这就是我想说的。他们做什么会告诉美国他们是什么。他们处于不断的变化当中，需要决定自己的身份了，之后我们才能做出相应的对策。我不会乱贴标签，事实上，我几乎从来不这样做，因为标签从来不会描述出全部的情况。我会详细把事情的全貌描述出来。中国目前看上去没有任何帝国主义的属性，但随着他们变得更像美国的一个资本主义（前）强权国家，他们很可能会走上帝国主义的道路，因为他们会有更多需要保护的东西。并且，依我所见，他们当然不会让朝鲜糟蹋他们新找到的“乐子”。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
Stephen, thanks for your comments. My question was borne out of an observation that some commenters, though clearly not yourself, put China in a Catch-22 position. They decry China as an "imperialist" and "expansionist" nation, but at the same time, they call for Chinese intervention in the DPRK, which would indeed be "expansionist." It's like calling somebody a criminal and then demanding that he shoot indiscriminately.
Stephen，多谢你的回复。我的问题是来自于我的一个观察，那就是一些评论员，但明显不包括你，正让中国陷入自相矛盾的境地。他们谴责中国成为一个“帝国主义者”啦，“扩张主义者”啦，但同时，在朝鲜问题上他们又需要中国的干预，这种干预明显是一个“扩张主义者”的行为。这就像把某人称作罪犯，然后要求他无差别射杀他人。
Stephen Borsher replied:
That is exactly why I don't like labels; also, I always allow room for change, of mind or otherwise. China was imperialistic, as were most empires, but are not so much now. They have gone through many changes and now appear to be patterning themselves using our evolution as a template; which would probably lead to our non-empire form of imperialism, unless they make better choices than we did. I welcome any culture that can advance humanity "properly"; as I think it should be. Although some of their policies make sense to me, like population control, their implementation is way too brutal and inhuman.
China is not in a Catch-22 position. They have demonstrated that by toying with US as if we were their bytch (which, IMO, we are).
We are the ones who are perpetually caught in Catch-8.
这就是我不喜欢标签的原因。另外，我总是留下改变观点或其他东西的余地。中国曾经是个帝国主义国家，正如大多数的帝国一样，但现在已经不那么帝国主义了。他们经历了许多变化，现在似乎在以我们的发展之路为模板，正形成他们自己的特色之路，这可能会最终演变成我们的非帝国式的帝国主义，除非他们做出了比我们更好的抉择。我欢迎任何能让人类“正确”前进的文化，正如我认为这本身就应该这样一样。尽管他们的一些政策我认为是有意义的，例如人口控制，但他们的实施方式太粗鲁和不人道了。
中国没陷入自相矛盾的境地。他们通过把我们当作婊子一样（在我看来我们的确是）玩弄来向世人宣示了这一点。
我们永远都是第八条军规里所描述的那种人。
Chris Jung wrote:
Did you guys hear about TR-3B, U.S Top Secret Air Craft with Anti Gravity Technology?
Chinese are no match.
兄弟们你们听说过TR-3B吗？美国最高机密的飞机，带有反重力技术。
中国没有飞机能与之匹配。
Bryan Smith replied:
Shhhh...don't give it away...Jeez...
嘘…不要泄露啊，唉…
Tony Carlos replied:
Triumph TR-3? Yeah, I had one in high school. Fun car so long as it didn't rain. Or snow. Or get cold. Or get hot....
Triumph TR-3？耶，我高中时有一辆。这车很好玩，只要不下雨，不下雪，不太冷，不太热…
Craig Shields replied:
Crud. I didn't read your response before posting. But great minds went to the same place.
废话。我发贴前没看到你的回复。但英雄所见略同。
ROBERT LANIER replied:
British sports cars were fine. I had two at the same time. Drove one and worked on one. No problem.
英国的跑车都是良品。一般我会同时保有两辆。一辆用来开，一辆用来工作。没问题。
William Clark wrote:
Sorry, but the headline makes me laugh. The Chinese are great people. But they have a long way to go from the assemblers of laundry baskets to a Stealth fighter. Or at least I hope!
对不起，但标题让我笑了。中国人是伟大的民族。但他们要从衣物篮的组装工人变成隐形战斗机的制造者还有很长一段路要走。或者至少我希望是这样！
Christine Del Gaizo wrote:
I think it's great for our defense industries that China is releasing these photos. That should help end silly talks on cutting our development programs. Creates good tax paying jobs too for both the defense contractors and all their sub contractors. Much better than Obama's ineffective stimulus programs and give aways to public union employees.
我认为中国释放这些图片对我们的国防工业来说是件好事。这会帮忙终止那些关于削减国防研发项目的愚蠢讨论。还会为国防工业的承包人和他们的分包人创造高税收支付的职位。这比奥巴马无效的经济刺激计划好得多，将会是送给公共雇佣协会的雇员的礼物。
John Matthew wrote:
First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if the US actually aided them in the development of this aircraft, if indeed it is real. The world, indeed the U.S. needs a bipolar situation. The multipolar environment we find ourselves in now can not last. Not for the U.S.China or Russia. A bipolar environment is much, much more manageable for all large nations.
Secondly, the U.S. was developing and perfecting stealth technology 30 plus years ago. Can you just imagine what it has now? The defense budget has only increased. Therefore, China's development of a stealth fighter/bomber is really inconsequential at this point. Moreover, do you really think the U.S. would pioneer a technology that it does not have the ability to counter? Which leads us right back to point number one. It actually does America good to have a China that "feels secure" in its own region and can be the new leader of all those little U.S. hating boyles that inflame the earth, just as Russia was back in the days.
Thirdly, Americans only have themselves to blame for China's rise in economic power. An American can not live, can not go through life without purchasing products made in China on a daily basis, unless the person wants to live like the Amish. Stop buying Chinese products. Start first with entertainment products and stop buying Chinese toys. These are a very high profit item that will have an immedite affect on how China conducts international relations and on how it treats its own people. Even the very darn mouse I am using to surf the web is made in China. The same goes for my freaking stapler, telephone, speakers and monitor. I am actually working in a Chinese office.
We want and need a strong, confident, human rights concerned China. We don't want and certainly do not need an overly ambitious, conceited, expansionist China. That is a prelude to war. Remember, we fought China in Korea and Vietnam. We have a combative relationship.
首先，如果这架飞机确有其物，那么若美国真的在这架飞机的研制过程中帮助了他们，我不会感到惊讶。这个世界，其实是美国，需要一个双极的环境。我们发现我们现在处于的多极环境不能持续。美中俄？不。一个双极的环境对于所有大国来说要好管理得多。
其次，超过30年前，美国就已经发展并完善了隐形技术。你能想象美国现今有什么吗？国防预算只增不降。所以，在这个意义上，中国隐形战斗机/轰炸机其实是无关痛痒的。另外，你真的认为美国会研发出它没能力去抵御的技术吗？关于这点你可以看看我的第一点是怎么说的。事实上拥有一个在自己地盘“感到安心”的中国对美国是有好处的，它可以成为所有那些搞乱全球秩序的讨厌美国的小国的新领导，就像俄罗斯在过去那样。
第三，对于中国经济实力的增长，美国只能责怪自己。美国人一日不购买中国制造的产品就活不成，除非他想过阿米希人那样的生活。不再购买中国产品，首先从娱乐产品开始，不要买中国的玩具。这些玩具有很高的利润，停止购买会立即影响中国如何处理国际关系和对待它自己的国民。就连我正在拿来上网的这个该死的鼠标都是中国制造的。我TM的订书机、电话、喇叭和显示器都一样。我其实是在一间中国办公室工作。
我们想要和需要一个强大、自信、关心人权的中国。我们不想要当然也不需要一个野心过大、骄傲自负的扩张主义者中国。这是战争的前奏了。记住，我们在朝鲜和越南和中国打过仗，我们之间非常好战。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
We also fought with China from 1941 to 1945.
我们在1941年到1945年也和中国并肩作战过。
David Lane replied:
the level of ignorance on this board never ceases to amaze
留言板这里的无知程度从来没让我不感到惊讶过。
Tony Carlos replied:
Just keep in mind that those products that American consumers "can't live without" are not being sold to us by Dong Feng or the Shiyan Company. They were made in China, and are being sold here, at the request of Stanley Tool, Revere Cookware, Apple, Nike, Calvin Klein and all the other US companies who chose to move their production to a communiast country. The consumer didn't demand it. The US companies everyone tells us to back made the move on thier own.
记住那些美国消费者没有就不能生活的产品并不是东风或十堰（？）公司卖给我们的。它们是中国制造的，但它们在这里的销售是通过史丹利、康宁、苹果、耐克、卡尔文·克莱恩和所有其他选择把它们的生产放在一个共产主义国家的美国公司之手的。这不是消费者要求的，是每个人都叫我们去支持的美国公司自己选择这样的。
Jim Smith replied:
It is so laughable, you just want China to become a country you and your countrymen want it to be. Would invading China and making China your colony suite your taste?
搞笑，你只是想中国变成你和你国家的人想它变成的国家而已。
侵略中国并把其变成你们的殖民地对你口味吗？
James Waugh wrote:
Obviously the Chinese Military knows they are in the home stretch in their desire to keep us out of what they perceive as "their" local interests (i.e. Taiwan) and are ready to show it off (show us up). The Chinese defense budget will exceed the US defence budget at some point during this decade (was thinking it was looking to be around 2015).
Meanwhile the US can't even afford to develop the low end (constantly having to stretch it out), much lower capability F-35 to replace our 70's design F-16's and 60's design F-15's. The idea that we could afford to develop a follow on to the F-22 seems totally undoable at this point (even though the F-22 isn't that new anymore).
I wonder if we could revive F-22 production at this point? It wasn't that long ago it was canceled.
很明显中国军队知道他们处于准备工作的最后阶段，就要把我们驱逐出他们认为是在当地“属于他们的”利益（或者说台湾）之外，他们正准备向世人炫耀（他们让我们丢脸了）。中国的国防预算会在这个十年的某个点超过美国（我认为大概会是2015年）。
同时美国甚至没有钱研制低端的（总是不得不靠它来满足需要）、战斗力差得多的F35来取代我们70年代设计的F16和60年代设计的F15。认为我们有钱来研发F22的继任者的观点在目前来看似乎是完全不可行的（尽管F22已经不那么新颖了）。
我想知道当前我们能不能重新生产F22？就在不久之前它的生产被停止了。
Robert Fischler wrote:
This is what happens when you allow transfer of technology. The cats out of the bag.
这就是你允许技术转让的结果。机密都让中国人知道了。
Joe Jefferis replied:
Do we have the Clinton Administration to thank for their technology sharing agreements with China?
我们要感谢克林顿政府和中国的技术共享协议吗？
SHANTANU SHEKHAR wrote:
What is the point of all this? It is certainly not a deterrent, rather it is an offensive capability. China has enough deterrent as it is. It will cause a lot of un-easiness in Japan, India, and a lot of the neighboring countries and lead to un-necessary arms race.
China got here by focusing on growth and business. Why change things now?
这意味着什么？这明显不是增加中国的威慑力那么简单，而是增加中国的侵略能力。中国正如它实际上那样，已经有足够的威慑力了。这架飞机会在日本、印度和许多邻国产生大量不安情绪，最终导致一场不必要的军备竞赛。
中国在这里被报道是因为它专注于增长和商业，为什么现在要改变？
Karl Wright replied:
"China got here by focusing on growth and business. Why change things now?"
I don't think China is of one mind on its foreign policy. The civilian leadership is happy to continue focus on economics. The military leadership, on the other hand, has become very powerful, and they seem to now believe they hold the upper hand.
This is scary because the Red Army has made it very clear that (a) sooner, rather than later, it wants to claim Taiwan, and (b) it views any foreign presence in the Yellow Sea (the U.S., and yes, Japan too) as an embarrassment to China. Furthermore, China's Red Army is the Chinese institution with the strongest links to North Korea, and North Korea has stated unequivocably that South Korea belongs to it.
So there is a real possibility, seems to me, of a regional war instigated by China and North Korea against Taiwan and SK, with the U.S. and Japan as the likely losers.
“中国在这里被报道是因为它专注于增长和商业，为什么现在要改变？”
我不认为中国的外交政策是一根筋的。平民的领导乐于继续关注经济发展。另一方面，军队的领导已经变得非常强大，他们现在似乎认为他们占据上风。
这让人害怕，因为红军的这两个想法已经众人皆知了：1、它想更早点而不是迟点收回台湾，2、它认为任何在黄海出现的外国军队（美国，对，和日本）都会让中国难堪。另外，中国的红军是中国和朝鲜联系最密切的组织，而朝鲜明确宣称韩国是属于它的。
所以在我看来真的有可能会发生一场地区性战争，这场战争会由中国和朝鲜发动，目标是台湾和韩国，而美国和日本很有可能会是败者。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
You seem to be forgetting that officially, neither the Chinese Civil War nor the Korean War ended. Don't forget that South Korea likewise unequivocally asserts sovereignty over North Korea and that while Taiwanese Independence cannot be ignored, officially, the policy of the ROC is that the mainland belongs to it.
你似乎忘记了中国内战和朝鲜战争都没有正式结束。不要忘记韩国同样明确宣称对朝鲜享有主权，而虽然不能无视台湾事实上的独立，但中国的官方政策是大陆是属于台湾的。
Timothy D. Naegele wrote:
China is America's principal enemy in the world today, and in the foreseeable future. This is a fact of life. Make no mistake about it.
See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... iller/#comment-1188
中国是美国现在和所能预见未来的首要敌人。这就是真相，别弄错了，请见
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... iller/#comment-1188
Barack Obama is a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history ultimately. However, in the interim, he is dragging America down with him, and weakening the United States militarily, and risking the lives of millions of Americans and the future of this great country.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ected/#comment-1247 and
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ack-obama-a-racist/
巴拉克.奥巴马是一个幼稚无远见的人，就像莎士比亚笔下的悲剧人物终会被扔进历史的垃圾堆而遗忘。不过，在他的任期里，他把美国降到和他一样的程度，弱化美国军事力量，置数百万美国人的生命与险境，更威胁到美国本身。请见
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ected/#comment-1247 and
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ack-obama-a-racist/
Tony Carlos replied:
Nice bit of self-promotion, there Tim.
很好tim，几乎没有自我宣传。
Timothy D. Naegele replied:
Thank you, Tony, for your comment.
谢谢你的评论，tony。
Each article contains arguments and the discussion of issues that would be too lengthy to repeat here. Hence, readers have the choice of reading more or not. This short-cuts the process, and does not encumber this thread with long arguments or discussions.
每篇文章都有论点，讨论的内容太长这里就不说了。当然，读者有看更多（讨论）内容或者不看的权利。现在这个删节版并没有妨碍长版讨论的思路（连贯性）。
Thomas Bock wrote:
The editors of this prestigious institution should be ashamed of themselves; three articles on a Chinese weapon system that is clearly not a fifth generation fighter. This supposed stealth fighter is not capable of supersonic cruise, and from the pictures clearly doesn’t have vectoring exhaust. It relies on current Russian engines. The F-22, which was cancelled by this present Administration, has no equal. This has everything to do with the current defense appropriations battles, including the cancellation of a very expensive F-22 weapon system after building 200, and nothing to do with our Military being outclassed.
这个有声望的机构的编辑们真该惭愧；有三篇讲中国的明显不是第五代战斗机的文章。这个被称为隐身战斗机的东东没有超音速巡航，而且从图片上来看也没有矢量喷管，它现在用的还是俄罗斯的发动机，根本不是被现政府取消项目F22的对手。这些只是和现在的国防预算战有关，包括在制造了200架F22后取消昂贵的F22武器系统，和我们的军力正在被赶超没什么关联。
The Chinese were blustering before Gates’ visit. It is no different than when the CCP allows the RMB to appreciate prior to meeting with Treasury officials. Let the Chinese build whatever weapon systems they believe are necessary for their defense; no sane military would fight a major war with China on the Chinese mainland, we have only to ask the Japanese how that turned out for them. The Chinese have a long memory; they will not soon forget the dismembering of their nation at the hands of European colonists and the Japanese, nor should they. We should not let ourselves be forced into an arms race with a country that still has massive poverty, and the vast majority of citizens looking to become middle class. Although there are special interest groups on both sides of the Pacific that stand to make millions on such a rivalry; we went through this nonsense once before and should be very wary of those that want to send us down this path again.
中国在盖茨到访之前的咆哮（指首飞），并不比中国共产党在与（美国）财政部官员会面之前让人民币升值更困难。就让中国营建他们他们认为防卫必须的武器系统吧，会有失去理智的军队和他们在中国大陆交战的，我们只要问问日本日本人就好了。中国人有很长的记忆力，他们不会很快忘记欧洲殖民者和日本人是怎么肢解他们的国家的，他们也不该忘记。我们不该强迫我们自己加入一场军备竞赛，对手还是一个仍然拥有大量穷人，大多数国民仍渴望成为中产阶级的国家。不过太平洋两岸都有特殊的利益集团，他们指望通过（军备）竞赛获得数百万美元。我们应该忽略这些没有意义的东西，还应该对那些想把我们再次送上（军备竞赛）道路的人保持警惕。
Mike Scott wrote:
Perhaps it is time Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan had their own nuclear deterrent.
可能现在是台湾，南韩和日本拥有他们的核慑力的时候了。
Edwin White replied:
Indeed. It's a shame that the billion and a half people of China and South Korea are too cowardly to fight for their own freedoms and get out from the repressive rule of their dictators. But they have proven cowards for centuries, we can't expect them to change here and now.
确实。15亿中国人和韩国人太胆怯不敢为了他们的自由而奋斗，不敢挣脱独裁者的统治真是令人惭愧。不过他们已经胆怯的几个世纪，在这我们也不用意外。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
Did you google who Zhu Yuanzhang and Sun Yat-sen were?
你查过朱元璋和孙逸仙吗？
Nan Qin replied:
I agree with you. Most of the Chinese people don't understand how precious liberty and democracy are thus they are not able to build a government which aims to benefit most people rather than just itself. That's why China now becomes a trouble for many other countries.
我同意。大部分中国人不懂得自由和民主的珍贵，因为他们不能建立一个为大多数人造福而不是为自己牟利的政府。这就是中国成为大部分国家麻烦的原因。
Keith Milliken wrote:
Big deal... I suspect it is just an older generation with the veneer/shell of a stealth fighter. Chinese are known to be good at bluffing.
大事件~~我怀疑（飞机）只是一个老式隐形战斗机的外壳。中国人以会唬人而闻名。
Ken Phillips wrote:
We request their military to be transparent; and they clearly made it very much so during Gate's visit.
我们要求他们军事透明化；然后他们就在盖茨访问期间非常透明。
Ian Gilbert wrote:
Someone should tell the PLA that the U.S. Congress isn't a rubber-stamp operation, and that this little stunt, causing Secretary Gates to lose face, is likely to shift the dynamic in Congress about the renminbi and other bilateral U.S. - China issues.
有人该告诉中国人民解放军美国国会不是橡皮图章，（首飞）只是个小表演，可以使盖茨部长丢脸，不过这可能让国会（的注意力）转向人民币和美中双边问题。
ROBERT LANIER wrote:
WWI was battleships. WWII was carriers. The next Big One will be zit faced kids who grew up on video games sitting in a military video store flying drones.
一战是用战列舰，二战是用航母，下一次大战就会是那些伴着电子游戏长大的满脸青春痘的孩子坐在军用视频前操作无人飞机。
If the Chinese sink a carrier then we sink the supply ships moving Chinese made products to California. Then better to just add a 200% import tax.
如果中国打沉航母我们就打沉装着中国货开往加利福尼亚的船，然后把进口税加到200%。
Gerry Dail replied:
So, WWI was battleships? So that weapon system was the cause of the several million deaths in that war. Who knew that battleships could move around on the ground in France and in Russia? Heck, forget about that darned machine gun or that tactics of trench warfare, originated in the US Civil War, were outmoded by the ground weapons of the day. Nope, it was the battleship that really did the damage and held the world in awe. Thanks for the lesson in military history, Mr. Lanier. No doubt the next war will be between kids fighting each other using drones. Clearly, boots on the ground will not matter.
哦，一战是用战列舰？那一战中造成数百万死亡的武器系统呢，有人知道战列舰可以在法国和俄罗斯的陆地上跑来跑去吗？哎，忘记起源于美国内战和一战的该死的机枪和阵地战让其他武器系统都过时（的事实吧）。不不，是战列舰造成了破坏，让世界恐惧。Mr. Lanier.谢谢你讲的军事史，不用怀疑，下次战争将会在孩子们操纵无人飞机之间展开，地面部队无关紧要。
Jon Track wrote:
Take off the plastic cover that was copy taken from F22 picture u will see chinese..
Scratch of the chinese, u will see russian.
拿掉仿制F22的塑料外壳你就会看到中国货~~划开中国货你就会看到俄国货。
Eric Kjellen wrote:
Unimpressive. Greatly oversized, engines are obviously Russian imports (with nozzles that won't be conducive to stealth). Also too many airfoils for effective stealth capability.
不够给力。超大的机身，发动机明显是从俄国进口的（喷嘴也不利于隐形）。为了有效隐形要耗费过多的航空燃油。
Richard Tomalewicz wrote:
The only reason China is currently US friendly, is our economies are so closely tied. We are a large consumers of Chinese products, and they own our debt. The J-20 is a status symbol, it does not have to go head to head, with any other 5th generation fighter, to serve China's expansion into the Asia continent. We will soon become less of a consumer of China products, as China expands it's consumer base, and builds stronger economic alliances with the likes of an emerging India, and middle east and South East Asian Nations that have more in common with today's China then with the West. I don't beleive the US has the stomach for another conflict on the Asia Continent.
中国还能对现在的美国保持友好的唯一原因只是经济联系紧密，我们是中国最大的客户，他们有我们的债权。没必要正面交手，J20就是现在情况的象征，中国要带着他的第五代战机在亚洲扩张。在中国扩大了他的客户基础，与像新兴的印度，中东，东南亚建立紧密的经济联盟后，我们就会变成中国不那么重要的客户，明显这些国家与中国的相通之处多于西方。我不相信美国还会有开始另一场亚洲的冲突的欲望。
Lets' not forget why there was a Korean War. After WW II, and the rise of Communist China there was the threat of China moving in on the territories from Southeast Asia, into the Middle East, and Pacific vacuum left by the defeat of the Japanese empire. All the protectorate territories of the US, and the French and British Commonwealth were threaten by the march of communisnm. Truman seen this as a threat over territory the west fought over just a few years earlier, and were not willing to just give it away to China or Russian communist intervention. China won the waiting game on our dime, and no loner needs the Western Hemisphere, or European nations to grow as the Eastern Hemisphere Super Power. Our Nation should focus more on building an alliances of the America's and protecting the Western Hemisphere. The J-20 is no threat to the US in a war over the Asian Continent, but the Asian Continent is not going to be our next battle ground. Our battle is over our economic future, and further expansion of China into Western Hemisphere.
别忘了为什么会发生朝鲜战争。二战以后中国共产党在中国的兴起就是中国最大的威胁，现在中国正在从它位于东南亚的领土向中东和日帝国战败后留下的太平洋真空地带逼进。所有受美国，法国和英联邦保护的领土都受到了共产主义的威胁。杜鲁门将其视为领土威胁，这些领土是西方仅仅几年前才打下来的，他们不想把这里让给中国和俄罗斯的共产主义。中国在我们帮助下赢得了这场持久战，他不再需要西半球和欧洲国家，她长成了东半球的超级大国。我们国家应该更注意与美国结盟保护西半球。J20在超出亚洲大陆的战争中威胁不到美国，但是亚洲大陆也不会成为我们的下一个战场了。我们要打的是经济前景和防范中国进一步向西半球扩张的战争。
Stephen, thanks for your comments. My question was borne out of an observation that some commenters, though clearly not yourself, put China in a Catch-22 position. They decry China as an "imperialist" and "expansionist" nation, but at the same time, they call for Chinese intervention in the DPRK, which would indeed be "expansionist." It's like calling somebody a criminal and then demanding that he shoot indiscriminately.
Stephen，多谢你的回复。我的问题是来自于我的一个观察，那就是一些评论员，但明显不包括你，正让中国陷入自相矛盾的境地。他们谴责中国成为一个“帝国主义者”啦，“扩张主义者”啦，但同时，在朝鲜问题上他们又需要中国的干预，这种干预明显是一个“扩张主义者”的行为。这就像把某人称作罪犯，然后要求他无差别射杀他人。
Stephen Borsher replied:
That is exactly why I don't like labels; also, I always allow room for change, of mind or otherwise. China was imperialistic, as were most empires, but are not so much now. They have gone through many changes and now appear to be patterning themselves using our evolution as a template; which would probably lead to our non-empire form of imperialism, unless they make better choices than we did. I welcome any culture that can advance humanity "properly"; as I think it should be. Although some of their policies make sense to me, like population control, their implementation is way too brutal and inhuman.
China is not in a Catch-22 position. They have demonstrated that by toying with US as if we were their bytch (which, IMO, we are).
We are the ones who are perpetually caught in Catch-8.
这就是我不喜欢标签的原因。另外，我总是留下改变观点或其他东西的余地。中国曾经是个帝国主义国家，正如大多数的帝国一样，但现在已经不那么帝国主义了。他们经历了许多变化，现在似乎在以我们的发展之路为模板，正形成他们自己的特色之路，这可能会最终演变成我们的非帝国式的帝国主义，除非他们做出了比我们更好的抉择。我欢迎任何能让人类“正确”前进的文化，正如我认为这本身就应该这样一样。尽管他们的一些政策我认为是有意义的，例如人口控制，但他们的实施方式太粗鲁和不人道了。
中国没陷入自相矛盾的境地。他们通过把我们当作婊子一样（在我看来我们的确是）玩弄来向世人宣示了这一点。
我们永远都是第八条军规里所描述的那种人。
Chris Jung wrote:
Did you guys hear about TR-3B, U.S Top Secret Air Craft with Anti Gravity Technology?
Chinese are no match.
兄弟们你们听说过TR-3B吗？美国最高机密的飞机，带有反重力技术。
中国没有飞机能与之匹配。
Bryan Smith replied:
Shhhh...don't give it away...Jeez...
嘘…不要泄露啊，唉…
Tony Carlos replied:
Triumph TR-3? Yeah, I had one in high school. Fun car so long as it didn't rain. Or snow. Or get cold. Or get hot....
Triumph TR-3？耶，我高中时有一辆。这车很好玩，只要不下雨，不下雪，不太冷，不太热…
Craig Shields replied:
Crud. I didn't read your response before posting. But great minds went to the same place.
废话。我发贴前没看到你的回复。但英雄所见略同。
ROBERT LANIER replied:
British sports cars were fine. I had two at the same time. Drove one and worked on one. No problem.
英国的跑车都是良品。一般我会同时保有两辆。一辆用来开，一辆用来工作。没问题。
William Clark wrote:
Sorry, but the headline makes me laugh. The Chinese are great people. But they have a long way to go from the assemblers of laundry baskets to a Stealth fighter. Or at least I hope!
对不起，但标题让我笑了。中国人是伟大的民族。但他们要从衣物篮的组装工人变成隐形战斗机的制造者还有很长一段路要走。或者至少我希望是这样！
Christine Del Gaizo wrote:
I think it's great for our defense industries that China is releasing these photos. That should help end silly talks on cutting our development programs. Creates good tax paying jobs too for both the defense contractors and all their sub contractors. Much better than Obama's ineffective stimulus programs and give aways to public union employees.
我认为中国释放这些图片对我们的国防工业来说是件好事。这会帮忙终止那些关于削减国防研发项目的愚蠢讨论。还会为国防工业的承包人和他们的分包人创造高税收支付的职位。这比奥巴马无效的经济刺激计划好得多，将会是送给公共雇佣协会的雇员的礼物。
John Matthew wrote:
First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if the US actually aided them in the development of this aircraft, if indeed it is real. The world, indeed the U.S. needs a bipolar situation. The multipolar environment we find ourselves in now can not last. Not for the U.S.China or Russia. A bipolar environment is much, much more manageable for all large nations.
Secondly, the U.S. was developing and perfecting stealth technology 30 plus years ago. Can you just imagine what it has now? The defense budget has only increased. Therefore, China's development of a stealth fighter/bomber is really inconsequential at this point. Moreover, do you really think the U.S. would pioneer a technology that it does not have the ability to counter? Which leads us right back to point number one. It actually does America good to have a China that "feels secure" in its own region and can be the new leader of all those little U.S. hating boyles that inflame the earth, just as Russia was back in the days.
Thirdly, Americans only have themselves to blame for China's rise in economic power. An American can not live, can not go through life without purchasing products made in China on a daily basis, unless the person wants to live like the Amish. Stop buying Chinese products. Start first with entertainment products and stop buying Chinese toys. These are a very high profit item that will have an immedite affect on how China conducts international relations and on how it treats its own people. Even the very darn mouse I am using to surf the web is made in China. The same goes for my freaking stapler, telephone, speakers and monitor. I am actually working in a Chinese office.
We want and need a strong, confident, human rights concerned China. We don't want and certainly do not need an overly ambitious, conceited, expansionist China. That is a prelude to war. Remember, we fought China in Korea and Vietnam. We have a combative relationship.
首先，如果这架飞机确有其物，那么若美国真的在这架飞机的研制过程中帮助了他们，我不会感到惊讶。这个世界，其实是美国，需要一个双极的环境。我们发现我们现在处于的多极环境不能持续。美中俄？不。一个双极的环境对于所有大国来说要好管理得多。
其次，超过30年前，美国就已经发展并完善了隐形技术。你能想象美国现今有什么吗？国防预算只增不降。所以，在这个意义上，中国隐形战斗机/轰炸机其实是无关痛痒的。另外，你真的认为美国会研发出它没能力去抵御的技术吗？关于这点你可以看看我的第一点是怎么说的。事实上拥有一个在自己地盘“感到安心”的中国对美国是有好处的，它可以成为所有那些搞乱全球秩序的讨厌美国的小国的新领导，就像俄罗斯在过去那样。
第三，对于中国经济实力的增长，美国只能责怪自己。美国人一日不购买中国制造的产品就活不成，除非他想过阿米希人那样的生活。不再购买中国产品，首先从娱乐产品开始，不要买中国的玩具。这些玩具有很高的利润，停止购买会立即影响中国如何处理国际关系和对待它自己的国民。就连我正在拿来上网的这个该死的鼠标都是中国制造的。我TM的订书机、电话、喇叭和显示器都一样。我其实是在一间中国办公室工作。
我们想要和需要一个强大、自信、关心人权的中国。我们不想要当然也不需要一个野心过大、骄傲自负的扩张主义者中国。这是战争的前奏了。记住，我们在朝鲜和越南和中国打过仗，我们之间非常好战。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
We also fought with China from 1941 to 1945.
我们在1941年到1945年也和中国并肩作战过。
David Lane replied:
the level of ignorance on this board never ceases to amaze
留言板这里的无知程度从来没让我不感到惊讶过。
Tony Carlos replied:
Just keep in mind that those products that American consumers "can't live without" are not being sold to us by Dong Feng or the Shiyan Company. They were made in China, and are being sold here, at the request of Stanley Tool, Revere Cookware, Apple, Nike, Calvin Klein and all the other US companies who chose to move their production to a communiast country. The consumer didn't demand it. The US companies everyone tells us to back made the move on thier own.
记住那些美国消费者没有就不能生活的产品并不是东风或十堰（？）公司卖给我们的。它们是中国制造的，但它们在这里的销售是通过史丹利、康宁、苹果、耐克、卡尔文·克莱恩和所有其他选择把它们的生产放在一个共产主义国家的美国公司之手的。这不是消费者要求的，是每个人都叫我们去支持的美国公司自己选择这样的。
Jim Smith replied:
It is so laughable, you just want China to become a country you and your countrymen want it to be. Would invading China and making China your colony suite your taste?
搞笑，你只是想中国变成你和你国家的人想它变成的国家而已。
侵略中国并把其变成你们的殖民地对你口味吗？
James Waugh wrote:
Obviously the Chinese Military knows they are in the home stretch in their desire to keep us out of what they perceive as "their" local interests (i.e. Taiwan) and are ready to show it off (show us up). The Chinese defense budget will exceed the US defence budget at some point during this decade (was thinking it was looking to be around 2015).
Meanwhile the US can't even afford to develop the low end (constantly having to stretch it out), much lower capability F-35 to replace our 70's design F-16's and 60's design F-15's. The idea that we could afford to develop a follow on to the F-22 seems totally undoable at this point (even though the F-22 isn't that new anymore).
I wonder if we could revive F-22 production at this point? It wasn't that long ago it was canceled.
很明显中国军队知道他们处于准备工作的最后阶段，就要把我们驱逐出他们认为是在当地“属于他们的”利益（或者说台湾）之外，他们正准备向世人炫耀（他们让我们丢脸了）。中国的国防预算会在这个十年的某个点超过美国（我认为大概会是2015年）。
同时美国甚至没有钱研制低端的（总是不得不靠它来满足需要）、战斗力差得多的F35来取代我们70年代设计的F16和60年代设计的F15。认为我们有钱来研发F22的继任者的观点在目前来看似乎是完全不可行的（尽管F22已经不那么新颖了）。
我想知道当前我们能不能重新生产F22？就在不久之前它的生产被停止了。
Robert Fischler wrote:
This is what happens when you allow transfer of technology. The cats out of the bag.
这就是你允许技术转让的结果。机密都让中国人知道了。
Joe Jefferis replied:
Do we have the Clinton Administration to thank for their technology sharing agreements with China?
我们要感谢克林顿政府和中国的技术共享协议吗？
SHANTANU SHEKHAR wrote:
What is the point of all this? It is certainly not a deterrent, rather it is an offensive capability. China has enough deterrent as it is. It will cause a lot of un-easiness in Japan, India, and a lot of the neighboring countries and lead to un-necessary arms race.
China got here by focusing on growth and business. Why change things now?
这意味着什么？这明显不是增加中国的威慑力那么简单，而是增加中国的侵略能力。中国正如它实际上那样，已经有足够的威慑力了。这架飞机会在日本、印度和许多邻国产生大量不安情绪，最终导致一场不必要的军备竞赛。
中国在这里被报道是因为它专注于增长和商业，为什么现在要改变？
Karl Wright replied:
"China got here by focusing on growth and business. Why change things now?"
I don't think China is of one mind on its foreign policy. The civilian leadership is happy to continue focus on economics. The military leadership, on the other hand, has become very powerful, and they seem to now believe they hold the upper hand.
This is scary because the Red Army has made it very clear that (a) sooner, rather than later, it wants to claim Taiwan, and (b) it views any foreign presence in the Yellow Sea (the U.S., and yes, Japan too) as an embarrassment to China. Furthermore, China's Red Army is the Chinese institution with the strongest links to North Korea, and North Korea has stated unequivocably that South Korea belongs to it.
So there is a real possibility, seems to me, of a regional war instigated by China and North Korea against Taiwan and SK, with the U.S. and Japan as the likely losers.
“中国在这里被报道是因为它专注于增长和商业，为什么现在要改变？”
我不认为中国的外交政策是一根筋的。平民的领导乐于继续关注经济发展。另一方面，军队的领导已经变得非常强大，他们现在似乎认为他们占据上风。
这让人害怕，因为红军的这两个想法已经众人皆知了：1、它想更早点而不是迟点收回台湾，2、它认为任何在黄海出现的外国军队（美国，对，和日本）都会让中国难堪。另外，中国的红军是中国和朝鲜联系最密切的组织，而朝鲜明确宣称韩国是属于它的。
所以在我看来真的有可能会发生一场地区性战争，这场战争会由中国和朝鲜发动，目标是台湾和韩国，而美国和日本很有可能会是败者。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
You seem to be forgetting that officially, neither the Chinese Civil War nor the Korean War ended. Don't forget that South Korea likewise unequivocally asserts sovereignty over North Korea and that while Taiwanese Independence cannot be ignored, officially, the policy of the ROC is that the mainland belongs to it.
你似乎忘记了中国内战和朝鲜战争都没有正式结束。不要忘记韩国同样明确宣称对朝鲜享有主权，而虽然不能无视台湾事实上的独立，但中国的官方政策是大陆是属于台湾的。
Timothy D. Naegele wrote:
China is America's principal enemy in the world today, and in the foreseeable future. This is a fact of life. Make no mistake about it.
See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... iller/#comment-1188
中国是美国现在和所能预见未来的首要敌人。这就是真相，别弄错了，请见
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... iller/#comment-1188
Barack Obama is a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history ultimately. However, in the interim, he is dragging America down with him, and weakening the United States militarily, and risking the lives of millions of Americans and the future of this great country.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ected/#comment-1247 and
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ack-obama-a-racist/
巴拉克.奥巴马是一个幼稚无远见的人，就像莎士比亚笔下的悲剧人物终会被扔进历史的垃圾堆而遗忘。不过，在他的任期里，他把美国降到和他一样的程度，弱化美国军事力量，置数百万美国人的生命与险境，更威胁到美国本身。请见
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ected/#comment-1247 and
http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com ... ack-obama-a-racist/
Tony Carlos replied:
Nice bit of self-promotion, there Tim.
很好tim，几乎没有自我宣传。
Timothy D. Naegele replied:
Thank you, Tony, for your comment.
谢谢你的评论，tony。
Each article contains arguments and the discussion of issues that would be too lengthy to repeat here. Hence, readers have the choice of reading more or not. This short-cuts the process, and does not encumber this thread with long arguments or discussions.
每篇文章都有论点，讨论的内容太长这里就不说了。当然，读者有看更多（讨论）内容或者不看的权利。现在这个删节版并没有妨碍长版讨论的思路（连贯性）。
Thomas Bock wrote:
The editors of this prestigious institution should be ashamed of themselves; three articles on a Chinese weapon system that is clearly not a fifth generation fighter. This supposed stealth fighter is not capable of supersonic cruise, and from the pictures clearly doesn’t have vectoring exhaust. It relies on current Russian engines. The F-22, which was cancelled by this present Administration, has no equal. This has everything to do with the current defense appropriations battles, including the cancellation of a very expensive F-22 weapon system after building 200, and nothing to do with our Military being outclassed.
这个有声望的机构的编辑们真该惭愧；有三篇讲中国的明显不是第五代战斗机的文章。这个被称为隐身战斗机的东东没有超音速巡航，而且从图片上来看也没有矢量喷管，它现在用的还是俄罗斯的发动机，根本不是被现政府取消项目F22的对手。这些只是和现在的国防预算战有关，包括在制造了200架F22后取消昂贵的F22武器系统，和我们的军力正在被赶超没什么关联。
The Chinese were blustering before Gates’ visit. It is no different than when the CCP allows the RMB to appreciate prior to meeting with Treasury officials. Let the Chinese build whatever weapon systems they believe are necessary for their defense; no sane military would fight a major war with China on the Chinese mainland, we have only to ask the Japanese how that turned out for them. The Chinese have a long memory; they will not soon forget the dismembering of their nation at the hands of European colonists and the Japanese, nor should they. We should not let ourselves be forced into an arms race with a country that still has massive poverty, and the vast majority of citizens looking to become middle class. Although there are special interest groups on both sides of the Pacific that stand to make millions on such a rivalry; we went through this nonsense once before and should be very wary of those that want to send us down this path again.
中国在盖茨到访之前的咆哮（指首飞），并不比中国共产党在与（美国）财政部官员会面之前让人民币升值更困难。就让中国营建他们他们认为防卫必须的武器系统吧，会有失去理智的军队和他们在中国大陆交战的，我们只要问问日本日本人就好了。中国人有很长的记忆力，他们不会很快忘记欧洲殖民者和日本人是怎么肢解他们的国家的，他们也不该忘记。我们不该强迫我们自己加入一场军备竞赛，对手还是一个仍然拥有大量穷人，大多数国民仍渴望成为中产阶级的国家。不过太平洋两岸都有特殊的利益集团，他们指望通过（军备）竞赛获得数百万美元。我们应该忽略这些没有意义的东西，还应该对那些想把我们再次送上（军备竞赛）道路的人保持警惕。
Mike Scott wrote:
Perhaps it is time Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan had their own nuclear deterrent.
可能现在是台湾，南韩和日本拥有他们的核慑力的时候了。
Edwin White replied:
Indeed. It's a shame that the billion and a half people of China and South Korea are too cowardly to fight for their own freedoms and get out from the repressive rule of their dictators. But they have proven cowards for centuries, we can't expect them to change here and now.
确实。15亿中国人和韩国人太胆怯不敢为了他们的自由而奋斗，不敢挣脱独裁者的统治真是令人惭愧。不过他们已经胆怯的几个世纪，在这我们也不用意外。
Wilhelm Pappeln replied:
Did you google who Zhu Yuanzhang and Sun Yat-sen were?
你查过朱元璋和孙逸仙吗？
Nan Qin replied:
I agree with you. Most of the Chinese people don't understand how precious liberty and democracy are thus they are not able to build a government which aims to benefit most people rather than just itself. That's why China now becomes a trouble for many other countries.
我同意。大部分中国人不懂得自由和民主的珍贵，因为他们不能建立一个为大多数人造福而不是为自己牟利的政府。这就是中国成为大部分国家麻烦的原因。
Keith Milliken wrote:
Big deal... I suspect it is just an older generation with the veneer/shell of a stealth fighter. Chinese are known to be good at bluffing.
大事件~~我怀疑（飞机）只是一个老式隐形战斗机的外壳。中国人以会唬人而闻名。
Ken Phillips wrote:
We request their military to be transparent; and they clearly made it very much so during Gate's visit.
我们要求他们军事透明化；然后他们就在盖茨访问期间非常透明。
Ian Gilbert wrote:
Someone should tell the PLA that the U.S. Congress isn't a rubber-stamp operation, and that this little stunt, causing Secretary Gates to lose face, is likely to shift the dynamic in Congress about the renminbi and other bilateral U.S. - China issues.
有人该告诉中国人民解放军美国国会不是橡皮图章，（首飞）只是个小表演，可以使盖茨部长丢脸，不过这可能让国会（的注意力）转向人民币和美中双边问题。
ROBERT LANIER wrote:
WWI was battleships. WWII was carriers. The next Big One will be zit faced kids who grew up on video games sitting in a military video store flying drones.
一战是用战列舰，二战是用航母，下一次大战就会是那些伴着电子游戏长大的满脸青春痘的孩子坐在军用视频前操作无人飞机。
If the Chinese sink a carrier then we sink the supply ships moving Chinese made products to California. Then better to just add a 200% import tax.
如果中国打沉航母我们就打沉装着中国货开往加利福尼亚的船，然后把进口税加到200%。
Gerry Dail replied:
So, WWI was battleships? So that weapon system was the cause of the several million deaths in that war. Who knew that battleships could move around on the ground in France and in Russia? Heck, forget about that darned machine gun or that tactics of trench warfare, originated in the US Civil War, were outmoded by the ground weapons of the day. Nope, it was the battleship that really did the damage and held the world in awe. Thanks for the lesson in military history, Mr. Lanier. No doubt the next war will be between kids fighting each other using drones. Clearly, boots on the ground will not matter.
哦，一战是用战列舰？那一战中造成数百万死亡的武器系统呢，有人知道战列舰可以在法国和俄罗斯的陆地上跑来跑去吗？哎，忘记起源于美国内战和一战的该死的机枪和阵地战让其他武器系统都过时（的事实吧）。不不，是战列舰造成了破坏，让世界恐惧。Mr. Lanier.谢谢你讲的军事史，不用怀疑，下次战争将会在孩子们操纵无人飞机之间展开，地面部队无关紧要。
Jon Track wrote:
Take off the plastic cover that was copy taken from F22 picture u will see chinese..
Scratch of the chinese, u will see russian.
拿掉仿制F22的塑料外壳你就会看到中国货~~划开中国货你就会看到俄国货。
Eric Kjellen wrote:
Unimpressive. Greatly oversized, engines are obviously Russian imports (with nozzles that won't be conducive to stealth). Also too many airfoils for effective stealth capability.
不够给力。超大的机身，发动机明显是从俄国进口的（喷嘴也不利于隐形）。为了有效隐形要耗费过多的航空燃油。
Richard Tomalewicz wrote:
The only reason China is currently US friendly, is our economies are so closely tied. We are a large consumers of Chinese products, and they own our debt. The J-20 is a status symbol, it does not have to go head to head, with any other 5th generation fighter, to serve China's expansion into the Asia continent. We will soon become less of a consumer of China products, as China expands it's consumer base, and builds stronger economic alliances with the likes of an emerging India, and middle east and South East Asian Nations that have more in common with today's China then with the West. I don't beleive the US has the stomach for another conflict on the Asia Continent.
中国还能对现在的美国保持友好的唯一原因只是经济联系紧密，我们是中国最大的客户，他们有我们的债权。没必要正面交手，J20就是现在情况的象征，中国要带着他的第五代战机在亚洲扩张。在中国扩大了他的客户基础，与像新兴的印度，中东，东南亚建立紧密的经济联盟后，我们就会变成中国不那么重要的客户，明显这些国家与中国的相通之处多于西方。我不相信美国还会有开始另一场亚洲的冲突的欲望。
Lets' not forget why there was a Korean War. After WW II, and the rise of Communist China there was the threat of China moving in on the territories from Southeast Asia, into the Middle East, and Pacific vacuum left by the defeat of the Japanese empire. All the protectorate territories of the US, and the French and British Commonwealth were threaten by the march of communisnm. Truman seen this as a threat over territory the west fought over just a few years earlier, and were not willing to just give it away to China or Russian communist intervention. China won the waiting game on our dime, and no loner needs the Western Hemisphere, or European nations to grow as the Eastern Hemisphere Super Power. Our Nation should focus more on building an alliances of the America's and protecting the Western Hemisphere. The J-20 is no threat to the US in a war over the Asian Continent, but the Asian Continent is not going to be our next battle ground. Our battle is over our economic future, and further expansion of China into Western Hemisphere.
别忘了为什么会发生朝鲜战争。二战以后中国共产党在中国的兴起就是中国最大的威胁，现在中国正在从它位于东南亚的领土向中东和日帝国战败后留下的太平洋真空地带逼进。所有受美国，法国和英联邦保护的领土都受到了共产主义的威胁。杜鲁门将其视为领土威胁，这些领土是西方仅仅几年前才打下来的，他们不想把这里让给中国和俄罗斯的共产主义。中国在我们帮助下赢得了这场持久战，他不再需要西半球和欧洲国家，她长成了东半球的超级大国。我们国家应该更注意与美国结盟保护西半球。J20在超出亚洲大陆的战争中威胁不到美国，但是亚洲大陆也不会成为我们的下一个战场了。我们要打的是经济前景和防范中国进一步向西半球扩张的战争。
美国人像传说中的一样没文化