美軍不好的地方是什么？ （一）
What is the US military bad at? We Americans generally think of the US military as the best in the world, but surely there is something to work on.
譯文簡介
美軍不好的地方是什么？ 我們美國人普遍認(rèn)為美軍是世界上最好的軍隊，但肯定還有一些需要做的工作。
正文翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：呂洞賓！ 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
What is the US military bad at? We Americans generally think of the US military as the best in the world, but surely there is something to work on.
美軍不好的地方是什么？ 我們美國人普遍認(rèn)為美軍是世界上最好的軍隊，但肯定還有一些需要做的工作。
Niklas Kager Kofler, just interested in WWII What is the US military bad at? Well, that is a difficult question to be honest. Because the days of “bad” militaries and when you still could get away with blatant incompetence are long over and the US military is already a well-established institution that had enough time to weed out such deficiencies that I wouldn''t give them the strong and unfair predicate “bad”.
尼古拉斯·卡格·科夫勒（Niklas Kager Kofler）對二戰(zhàn)很感興趣
美軍不好的地方是什么？ 好吧，說實話，這是一個很難回答的問題。 因為所謂的“壞”軍人以及仍困于如何擺脫公然無能狀態(tài)的的時代已經(jīng)過去了，美軍已經(jīng)是一家行之有效的機(jī)構(gòu)，有足夠的時間來消除這種缺陷，以至于我不會給予他們這個偏激又不公正的稱謂：“壞”。
The only problem I see is the fact some people indeed consider the “US military the best in the world” and mistake having a giant budget and them being the mightiest fighting force in the known universe for some sort of innate American military prowess and superiority. But those people are few and as long as you avoid such a fallacy, the US military should be fine. Because sometimes a bit of modesty doesn''t hurt and less bragging is appreciated.
我看到的唯一問題是，是有人錯誤地掌握著海量的巨額預(yù)算并且覺得由于美國某種先天的軍事實力和優(yōu)越性 所以“美軍是世界上最好的”，是已知宇宙中最強(qiáng)大的戰(zhàn)斗部隊。
好在這種人很少，只要避免真的陷入這種謬論美國軍方就不會出現(xiàn)大礙。有時謙虛一點不會讓你受傷，少吹點牛更值得人贊賞。 【下邊第一個回答是原作者引述另一個回答者的內(nèi)容。】
How much stronger is the United States military as compared with the next strongest power?
The first answer I get.
與第二強(qiáng)國相比，美國軍事力量多強(qiáng)大？ 我拿到了一血（第一個回答這個問題）。
Daniel Kearns, former Paratrooper 82nd Airborne at U.S. Army 1,000 times. Maybe more. No other military or combination of militaries could even begin to inflict the slightest numbers of casualties on the United States Military in a conventional war. Consider: The US spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. 711 Billion. Per year. The next closest is China at 143 Billion.
丹尼爾·基恩斯（Daniel Kearns），美國陸軍第82空降師
（美軍實力是第二名的）一千倍，或更多。 考慮到美國的支出接近全世界其他國家在國防上的支出的綜合，每年7110億。緊隨其后的中國只有1,430億美元。所以在常規(guī)戰(zhàn)爭中，沒有其他任何軍事或軍事聯(lián)盟能對美國軍方造成最少的傷亡。
The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed) Ever. China has less than five hundred Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams. We have 10 super aircraft carriers. And another 10 smaller carriers. Everyone else has 10. Combined. And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters. No one else has a super carrier.
Fighting a conventional war against the US would be like a 3 year old child playing chess against Gary Kasparov. They wouldn''t even know what they were supposed to be looking at. *Edit. The purpose of the answer is not borne out of some nationalistic sense of pride, although I am a US Veteran and consider myself patriotic, but rather to call attention to how much larger the US Military Industrial Complex is than the entire rest of the world. I truly believe that the rest of the world really has no clue just how powerful the US Military is. We must begin to question the disparity of lethality between the US and the rest of the world. But we must also question, if not the US, who? Who do we want to have the largest military? China? North Korea? or an ally like the UK? Do we need to have 1,000 times the lethality of the closest military in strength? Or would 100 times suffice? I don''t have the answer to those questions, nor am I purporting to. But I think it''s important to begin a dialogue.
與美國進(jìn)行常規(guī)戰(zhàn)爭就像是一個3歲的孩子和加里·卡斯帕羅夫（俄羅斯國際象棋棋手，前國際象棋世界冠軍。）下棋。他們甚至都不知道眼該往哪兒看。 *編輯。答案的目的并非出于某種民族主義的自豪感，盡管我是美國退伍軍人，并自認(rèn)為是名愛國主義者，但人們需要注意的一點是美國軍事工業(yè)聯(lián)合體的規(guī)模比世界其他地區(qū)大得多。
我相信，世界其他地區(qū)真的不知道美國軍力有多強(qiáng)大。從現(xiàn)在開始我們必須要質(zhì)疑美國與世界其他地區(qū)之間的殺傷力差距（是否過大了）。但是我們還必須質(zhì)疑，如果不是美國，那該是誰呢？我們想讓誰擁有最強(qiáng)大的軍隊？中國？北朝鮮？還是像英國這樣的盟友？我們是否需要擁有比最接近的軍事力量強(qiáng)1,000倍的殺傷力的實力？還是100倍就夠了？我沒有這些問題的答案，也不打算這樣做。但是我認(rèn)為開始對話（對大家）都很重要。
What is the US military bad at? We Americans generally think of the US military as the best in the world, but surely there is something to work on.
美軍不好的地方是什么？ 我們美國人普遍認(rèn)為美軍是世界上最好的軍隊，但肯定還有一些需要做的工作。
Niklas Kager Kofler, just interested in WWII What is the US military bad at? Well, that is a difficult question to be honest. Because the days of “bad” militaries and when you still could get away with blatant incompetence are long over and the US military is already a well-established institution that had enough time to weed out such deficiencies that I wouldn''t give them the strong and unfair predicate “bad”.
尼古拉斯·卡格·科夫勒（Niklas Kager Kofler）對二戰(zhàn)很感興趣
美軍不好的地方是什么？ 好吧，說實話，這是一個很難回答的問題。 因為所謂的“壞”軍人以及仍困于如何擺脫公然無能狀態(tài)的的時代已經(jīng)過去了，美軍已經(jīng)是一家行之有效的機(jī)構(gòu)，有足夠的時間來消除這種缺陷，以至于我不會給予他們這個偏激又不公正的稱謂：“壞”。
The only problem I see is the fact some people indeed consider the “US military the best in the world” and mistake having a giant budget and them being the mightiest fighting force in the known universe for some sort of innate American military prowess and superiority. But those people are few and as long as you avoid such a fallacy, the US military should be fine. Because sometimes a bit of modesty doesn''t hurt and less bragging is appreciated.
我看到的唯一問題是，是有人錯誤地掌握著海量的巨額預(yù)算并且覺得由于美國某種先天的軍事實力和優(yōu)越性 所以“美軍是世界上最好的”，是已知宇宙中最強(qiáng)大的戰(zhàn)斗部隊。
好在這種人很少，只要避免真的陷入這種謬論美國軍方就不會出現(xiàn)大礙。有時謙虛一點不會讓你受傷，少吹點牛更值得人贊賞。 【下邊第一個回答是原作者引述另一個回答者的內(nèi)容。】
How much stronger is the United States military as compared with the next strongest power?
The first answer I get.
與第二強(qiáng)國相比，美國軍事力量多強(qiáng)大？ 我拿到了一血（第一個回答這個問題）。
Daniel Kearns, former Paratrooper 82nd Airborne at U.S. Army 1,000 times. Maybe more. No other military or combination of militaries could even begin to inflict the slightest numbers of casualties on the United States Military in a conventional war. Consider: The US spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. 711 Billion. Per year. The next closest is China at 143 Billion.
丹尼爾·基恩斯（Daniel Kearns），美國陸軍第82空降師
（美軍實力是第二名的）一千倍，或更多。 考慮到美國的支出接近全世界其他國家在國防上的支出的綜合，每年7110億。緊隨其后的中國只有1,430億美元。所以在常規(guī)戰(zhàn)爭中，沒有其他任何軍事或軍事聯(lián)盟能對美國軍方造成最少的傷亡。
The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed) Ever. China has less than five hundred Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams. We have 10 super aircraft carriers. And another 10 smaller carriers. Everyone else has 10. Combined. And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters. No one else has a super carrier.
Fighting a conventional war against the US would be like a 3 year old child playing chess against Gary Kasparov. They wouldn''t even know what they were supposed to be looking at. *Edit. The purpose of the answer is not borne out of some nationalistic sense of pride, although I am a US Veteran and consider myself patriotic, but rather to call attention to how much larger the US Military Industrial Complex is than the entire rest of the world. I truly believe that the rest of the world really has no clue just how powerful the US Military is. We must begin to question the disparity of lethality between the US and the rest of the world. But we must also question, if not the US, who? Who do we want to have the largest military? China? North Korea? or an ally like the UK? Do we need to have 1,000 times the lethality of the closest military in strength? Or would 100 times suffice? I don''t have the answer to those questions, nor am I purporting to. But I think it''s important to begin a dialogue.
與美國進(jìn)行常規(guī)戰(zhàn)爭就像是一個3歲的孩子和加里·卡斯帕羅夫（俄羅斯國際象棋棋手，前國際象棋世界冠軍。）下棋。他們甚至都不知道眼該往哪兒看。 *編輯。答案的目的并非出于某種民族主義的自豪感，盡管我是美國退伍軍人，并自認(rèn)為是名愛國主義者，但人們需要注意的一點是美國軍事工業(yè)聯(lián)合體的規(guī)模比世界其他地區(qū)大得多。
我相信，世界其他地區(qū)真的不知道美國軍力有多強(qiáng)大。從現(xiàn)在開始我們必須要質(zhì)疑美國與世界其他地區(qū)之間的殺傷力差距（是否過大了）。但是我們還必須質(zhì)疑，如果不是美國，那該是誰呢？我們想讓誰擁有最強(qiáng)大的軍隊？中國？北朝鮮？還是像英國這樣的盟友？我們是否需要擁有比最接近的軍事力量強(qiáng)1,000倍的殺傷力的實力？還是100倍就夠了？我沒有這些問題的答案，也不打算這樣做。但是我認(rèn)為開始對話（對大家）都很重要。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
