原创翻译——美国国防部长即将出台削减军费计划

Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget
帕内塔将提出削减军队预算方案

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is set this week to reveal his strategy that will guide the Pentagon in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from its budget, and with it the Obama administration’s vision of the military that the United States needs to meet 21st-century threats, according to senior officials.

华盛顿——据资深官员介绍，国防部长帕内塔将于本周公布一项旨在指导五角大楼削减数千亿美元预算的政策，奥巴马政府关于美国为应对21世纪威胁所需军队的设想也将一同面世。

In a shift of doctrine driven by fiscal reality and a deal last summer that kept the United States from defaulting on its debts, Mr. Panetta is expected to outline plans for carefully shrinking the military — and in so doing make it clear that the Pentagon will not maintain the ability to fight two sustained ground wars at once.

在财政现实及去夏美国为避免债务违约而达成的协议的共同推动下，国防思路发生变化，外界预计帕內塔将列明谨慎缩编美军的计划——同时表明五角大楼将不再保留可支撑两场地面长期战争的实力。

Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to “spoil” a second adversary’s ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.

帕内塔将表示：美军规模将足以在一场主要冲突中取胜，并在另一地区＂挫败＂敌人的企图，除此之外，还可进行诸如救灾或维持禁飞区等一些较小规模的行动。

Pentagon officials, in the meantime, are in final deliberations about potential cuts to virtually every important area of military spending: the nuclear arsenal, warships, combat aircraft, salaries, and retirement and health benefits. With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America’s ground forces.

与此同时，五角大楼官员正就涉及几乎所有重要军事领域的可能的开支削减进行最终的考量，其中包括核武库、军舰、战斗机、军饷、退休及医疗福利等。随着伊战的结束及阿富汗战争进入收尾阶段，帕内塔正考虑将在多大程度上缩小美国的地面部队。

There is broad agreement on the left, right and center that $450 billion in cuts over a decade — the amount that the White House and Pentagon agreed to last summer — is acceptable. That is about 8 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget. But there is intense debate about an additional $500 billion in cuts that may have to be made if Congress follows through with deeper reductions.

在未来十年削减4500亿美元——由白宫与五角大楼在去年夏天达成——这一数字获得了包括左、中、右在内的广泛接受，相当于五角大楼基本预算的百分之八。但至于是否需要另行削减5000亿美元以便国会实施更大规模的紧缩，各方仍争执不下。

Mr. Panetta and defense hawks say a reduction of $1 trillion, about 17 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget, would be ruinous to national security. Democrats and a few Republicans say that it would be painful but manageable; they add that there were steeper military cuts after the Cold War and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

帕內塔及军方鹰派指出，一万亿美元相当于五角大楼基本预算的百分之十七，这一削减将给国家安全带来毁灭性的后果。民主党及几个共和党人则认为一万亿的削减是痛苦的，但还在可承受范围。他们指出冷战、朝鲜战争和越战之后的削减幅度更大。

“Even at a trillion dollars, this is a shallower build-down than any of the last three we’ve done,” said Gordon Adams, who oversaw military budgets in the Clinton White House and is now a fellow at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “It would still be the world’s most dominant military. We would be in an arms race with ourselves.”

曾在克林顿政府中主管军队预算、现任Stimson中心研究员的Gordon Adams认为：＂即使减去一万亿美元也比不上前三次大裁减，美军仍将占据统治地位。我们是和自己搞军备竞赛。＂

Many who are more worried about cuts, including Mr. Panetta, acknowledge that Pentagon personnel costs are unsustainable and that generous retirement benefits may have to be scaled back to save crucial weapons programs.

包括帕内塔在内的众多担忧削减的人士承认五角大楼的人员开支难以为继，为保证关键武器项目，将不得不削减优厚的退休待遇。

“If we allow the current trend to continue,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant on a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Business Board, who has pushed for changes in the military retirement system, “we’re going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

力主改革退休计划的五角大楼国防商务委员会顾问Arnold L. Punaro指出：＂如果我们任由目前趋势继续下去，国防部将成为偶尔消灭个把恐怖分子的福利机构。＂

…由于正式计划未出，文章往后都是各方猜测，选几个亮点翻译：

The looming cuts inevitably force decisions on the scope and future of the American military. If, say, the Pentagon saves $7 billion over a decade by reducing the number of aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, would there be sufficient forces in the Pacific to counter an increasingly bold China? If the Pentagon saves nearly $150 billion in the next 10 years by shrinking the Army to, say, 483,000 troops from 570,000, would America be prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia?

削减临头，不得不就美军的规模和前途做出抉择。如果为节省70亿美元，将航母数量从十一艘减少到十艘，美军在太平洋是否有足够军力遏制日益嚣张的中国？如果为节省1500亿美元而将陆军从57万减至48万3千人，是否足以在亚洲进行一场残酷的持久战？
…

The chief target for weapons cuts is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most expensive weapons program in history. The Pentagon has plans to spend nearly $400 billion to buy 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035, but reductions are expected.

作为史上最昂贵的武器项目之一，F35联合攻击战机是裁减的首选目标。五角大楼有在2035年前斥资4000亿美元采购2500架该型隐形战机的计划，但削减在所难免。

The debate centers on how necessary the advanced stealth fighter really is and whether missions could be carried out with the less expensive F-16s. The main advantage of the F-35 is its ability to evade radar systems, making it difficult to shoot down — an attribute that is important only if the United States anticipates a war with another technologically advanced military.

围绕F35的辩论聚焦于先进隐形战机是否真的必要？能否使用较为低廉的F16执行任务？F35最大的优势在于可以躲过雷达系统，因而难以被击落——该特性只有在美国预见到将与另一科技强国开战时方显重要。

“It would matter some with Iran, it would matter a lot with China,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution and the author of a recent book, “The Wounded Giant: America’s Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity.”

布鲁克林研究院防务分析师、最近新书《受伤的巨人：身处紧缩时代的美军》作者Michael E. O’Hanlon如是说：＂F35对伊朗或许有些意义，对中国则意义重大。＂

纽约时报原文链接http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/0 ... &pagewanted=all

下面翻译几个报纸加精的读者评论：

1
It's about time! An unbridled military has enriched thousands of contractors and made it too easy to meddle in other countries affairs. It has also made it easy for other countries to say - let America do it. The volunteer military has put the burden on a few. They fight while others cruise.

早该如此！一支毫无约束的军队肥了几千名承包商，干涉他国事务也是轻而易举。此外，别国可以将（辛苦活）推到美国身上。志愿军制度让少数人身负重任，他们奋战，其他人则游手好闲。

We need to be strong in an unstable world, but we need to go about it in a much smarter way. I hope this is the serious beginning of a new mindset that will actually take place.

在一个动荡的世界里，我们需要保持强大，但应该更明智地达到这一目标。我希望这一回是新的观念郑重登场。

2
Why would communist China need a military to take over? Our own "conservative" corporate leaders have already sold out our country to communist China. You see this every time you enter a big box American store. Try to find any product of value that doesn't say "Made in China." The communists in China are better capitalists than the capitalists in America will ever be.

为什么共产中国要靠军队取胜？我们那些＂保守＂的大企业老板们早将美国卖给了中国。每次走进美国大卖场你都能够看到这些。试着找件不是中国产的商品看看。中共要比美国资本家还要资本主义得多。

And as we speak, there are more Chinese school children in China studying English...than there are American school children in America studying English. But there are almost no American children in America studying Mandarin Chinese. In fact, about the only Americans who speak Mandarin fluently...are the children of Chinese immigrants because their parents know the value of knowing two languages and that ANY child can learn to speak two languages perfectly.

就在此刻，在中国学习英语的学生比在美国学英语的学生还要多，但几乎没有美国小孩学习汉语。能说流利汉语的几乎都是中国移民的子女，因为他们的父母明白双语的重要性以及所有的小孩都能完美地学会两种语言。

3
"If, say, the Pentagon saves $7 billion over a decade by reducing the number of aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, would there be sufficient forces in the Pacific to counter an increasingly bold China?" - who wrote this laughable paragraph? The Chinese just built their FIRST aircraft carrier - do we need 10 to counter it? And why do we need to counter it at all? I doubt the Chinese will have their sitting offshore Washington, DC, as their military is actually designed to defend their country instead of ruling the world. Ours? Well, floating around the world looking for new "threats" to bomb.

原文写到＂如果为节省70亿美元，将航母数量从十一艘减少到十艘，美军在太平洋是否足够军力遏制日益嚣张的中国？＂
——这段可笑的文字谁写的？中国才刚刚建好第一艘航母，难道我们要用十艘去对付它吗？话说回来，我们干嘛非要对付中国？我不信中国敢开到美国家门口来。他们只求自保而不是统治世界。我们呢？好吧，全球巡游，到处寻找可以轰炸的新＂威胁＂。

4
My brother-in-law "served" for 20 years as a paper-pushing officer. He spent one 3 year stint overseas. Never had to face a bullet or any hardship. But he still gets a full pension and could retire in his early 40's. But, he turned around and went to work as a contractor, doing the same job, but for three times the money.
What a waste of taxpayer money!

我姐夫(也有可能是妹夫，英语不分姐妹）＂服役＂20年，是一个文职官员。只在海外驻扎过3年，从来不用面对子弹或吃任何苦。40出头就可以退休了，享受全额退休金。之后又以承包商的身份做回老本行，赚的是原来的3倍。
真是浪费纳税人的钱！

Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget
帕内塔将提出削减军队预算方案

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is set this week to reveal his strategy that will guide the Pentagon in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from its budget, and with it the Obama administration’s vision of the military that the United States needs to meet 21st-century threats, according to senior officials.

华盛顿——据资深官员介绍，国防部长帕内塔将于本周公布一项旨在指导五角大楼削减数千亿美元预算的政策，奥巴马政府关于美国为应对21世纪威胁所需军队的设想也将一同面世。

In a shift of doctrine driven by fiscal reality and a deal last summer that kept the United States from defaulting on its debts, Mr. Panetta is expected to outline plans for carefully shrinking the military — and in so doing make it clear that the Pentagon will not maintain the ability to fight two sustained ground wars at once.

在财政现实及去夏美国为避免债务违约而达成的协议的共同推动下，国防思路发生变化，外界预计帕內塔将列明谨慎缩编美军的计划——同时表明五角大楼将不再保留可支撑两场地面长期战争的实力。

Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to “spoil” a second adversary’s ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.

帕内塔将表示：美军规模将足以在一场主要冲突中取胜，并在另一地区＂挫败＂敌人的企图，除此之外，还可进行诸如救灾或维持禁飞区等一些较小规模的行动。

Pentagon officials, in the meantime, are in final deliberations about potential cuts to virtually every important area of military spending: the nuclear arsenal, warships, combat aircraft, salaries, and retirement and health benefits. With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America’s ground forces.

与此同时，五角大楼官员正就涉及几乎所有重要军事领域的可能的开支削减进行最终的考量，其中包括核武库、军舰、战斗机、军饷、退休及医疗福利等。随着伊战的结束及阿富汗战争进入收尾阶段，帕内塔正考虑将在多大程度上缩小美国的地面部队。

There is broad agreement on the left, right and center that $450 billion in cuts over a decade — the amount that the White House and Pentagon agreed to last summer — is acceptable. That is about 8 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget. But there is intense debate about an additional $500 billion in cuts that may have to be made if Congress follows through with deeper reductions.

在未来十年削减4500亿美元——由白宫与五角大楼在去年夏天达成——这一数字获得了包括左、中、右在内的广泛接受，相当于五角大楼基本预算的百分之八。但至于是否需要另行削减5000亿美元以便国会实施更大规模的紧缩，各方仍争执不下。

Mr. Panetta and defense hawks say a reduction of $1 trillion, about 17 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget, would be ruinous to national security. Democrats and a few Republicans say that it would be painful but manageable; they add that there were steeper military cuts after the Cold War and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

帕內塔及军方鹰派指出，一万亿美元相当于五角大楼基本预算的百分之十七，这一削减将给国家安全带来毁灭性的后果。民主党及几个共和党人则认为一万亿的削减是痛苦的，但还在可承受范围。他们指出冷战、朝鲜战争和越战之后的削减幅度更大。

“Even at a trillion dollars, this is a shallower build-down than any of the last three we’ve done,” said Gordon Adams, who oversaw military budgets in the Clinton White House and is now a fellow at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “It would still be the world’s most dominant military. We would be in an arms race with ourselves.”

曾在克林顿政府中主管军队预算、现任Stimson中心研究员的Gordon Adams认为：＂即使减去一万亿美元也比不上前三次大裁减，美军仍将占据统治地位。我们是和自己搞军备竞赛。＂

Many who are more worried about cuts, including Mr. Panetta, acknowledge that Pentagon personnel costs are unsustainable and that generous retirement benefits may have to be scaled back to save crucial weapons programs.

包括帕内塔在内的众多担忧削减的人士承认五角大楼的人员开支难以为继，为保证关键武器项目，将不得不削减优厚的退休待遇。

“If we allow the current trend to continue,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant on a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Business Board, who has pushed for changes in the military retirement system, “we’re going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

力主改革退休计划的五角大楼国防商务委员会顾问Arnold L. Punaro指出：＂如果我们任由目前趋势继续下去，国防部将成为偶尔消灭个把恐怖分子的福利机构。＂

…由于正式计划未出，文章往后都是各方猜测，选几个亮点翻译：

The looming cuts inevitably force decisions on the scope and future of the American military. If, say, the Pentagon saves $7 billion over a decade by reducing the number of aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, would there be sufficient forces in the Pacific to counter an increasingly bold China? If the Pentagon saves nearly $150 billion in the next 10 years by shrinking the Army to, say, 483,000 troops from 570,000, would America be prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia?

削减临头，不得不就美军的规模和前途做出抉择。如果为节省70亿美元，将航母数量从十一艘减少到十艘，美军在太平洋是否有足够军力遏制日益嚣张的中国？如果为节省1500亿美元而将陆军从57万减至48万3千人，是否足以在亚洲进行一场残酷的持久战？
…

The chief target for weapons cuts is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most expensive weapons program in history. The Pentagon has plans to spend nearly $400 billion to buy 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035, but reductions are expected.

作为史上最昂贵的武器项目之一，F35联合攻击战机是裁减的首选目标。五角大楼有在2035年前斥资4000亿美元采购2500架该型隐形战机的计划，但削减在所难免。

The debate centers on how necessary the advanced stealth fighter really is and whether missions could be carried out with the less expensive F-16s. The main advantage of the F-35 is its ability to evade radar systems, making it difficult to shoot down — an attribute that is important only if the United States anticipates a war with another technologically advanced military.

围绕F35的辩论聚焦于先进隐形战机是否真的必要？能否使用较为低廉的F16执行任务？F35最大的优势在于可以躲过雷达系统，因而难以被击落——该特性只有在美国预见到将与另一科技强国开战时方显重要。

“It would matter some with Iran, it would matter a lot with China,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution and the author of a recent book, “The Wounded Giant: America’s Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity.”

布鲁克林研究院防务分析师、最近新书《受伤的巨人：身处紧缩时代的美军》作者Michael E. O’Hanlon如是说：＂F35对伊朗或许有些意义，对中国则意义重大。＂

纽约时报原文链接http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/0 ... &pagewanted=all

下面翻译几个报纸加精的读者评论：

1
It's about time! An unbridled military has enriched thousands of contractors and made it too easy to meddle in other countries affairs. It has also made it easy for other countries to say - let America do it. The volunteer military has put the burden on a few. They fight while others cruise.

早该如此！一支毫无约束的军队肥了几千名承包商，干涉他国事务也是轻而易举。此外，别国可以将（辛苦活）推到美国身上。志愿军制度让少数人身负重任，他们奋战，其他人则游手好闲。

We need to be strong in an unstable world, but we need to go about it in a much smarter way. I hope this is the serious beginning of a new mindset that will actually take place.

在一个动荡的世界里，我们需要保持强大，但应该更明智地达到这一目标。我希望这一回是新的观念郑重登场。

2
Why would communist China need a military to take over? Our own "conservative" corporate leaders have already sold out our country to communist China. You see this every time you enter a big box American store. Try to find any product of value that doesn't say "Made in China." The communists in China are better capitalists than the capitalists in America will ever be.

为什么共产中国要靠军队取胜？我们那些＂保守＂的大企业老板们早将美国卖给了中国。每次走进美国大卖场你都能够看到这些。试着找件不是中国产的商品看看。中共要比美国资本家还要资本主义得多。

And as we speak, there are more Chinese school children in China studying English...than there are American school children in America studying English. But there are almost no American children in America studying Mandarin Chinese. In fact, about the only Americans who speak Mandarin fluently...are the children of Chinese immigrants because their parents know the value of knowing two languages and that ANY child can learn to speak two languages perfectly.

就在此刻，在中国学习英语的学生比在美国学英语的学生还要多，但几乎没有美国小孩学习汉语。能说流利汉语的几乎都是中国移民的子女，因为他们的父母明白双语的重要性以及所有的小孩都能完美地学会两种语言。

3
"If, say, the Pentagon saves $7 billion over a decade by reducing the number of aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, would there be sufficient forces in the Pacific to counter an increasingly bold China?" - who wrote this laughable paragraph? The Chinese just built their FIRST aircraft carrier - do we need 10 to counter it? And why do we need to counter it at all? I doubt the Chinese will have their sitting offshore Washington, DC, as their military is actually designed to defend their country instead of ruling the world. Ours? Well, floating around the world looking for new "threats" to bomb.

原文写到＂如果为节省70亿美元，将航母数量从十一艘减少到十艘，美军在太平洋是否足够军力遏制日益嚣张的中国？＂
——这段可笑的文字谁写的？中国才刚刚建好第一艘航母，难道我们要用十艘去对付它吗？话说回来，我们干嘛非要对付中国？我不信中国敢开到美国家门口来。他们只求自保而不是统治世界。我们呢？好吧，全球巡游，到处寻找可以轰炸的新＂威胁＂。

4
My brother-in-law "served" for 20 years as a paper-pushing officer. He spent one 3 year stint overseas. Never had to face a bullet or any hardship. But he still gets a full pension and could retire in his early 40's. But, he turned around and went to work as a contractor, doing the same job, but for three times the money.
What a waste of taxpayer money!

我姐夫(也有可能是妹夫，英语不分姐妹）＂服役＂20年，是一个文职官员。只在海外驻扎过3年，从来不用面对子弹或吃任何苦。40出头就可以退休了，享受全额退休金。之后又以承包商的身份做回老本行，赚的是原来的3倍。
真是浪费纳税人的钱！