返回列表 回复 发帖

[转载] 中国在南海岛礁起降有核打击能力的轰炸机

China lands nuclear strike-capable bombers on South China Sea islands
$ d1 v* i% ~5 Z4 X0 w- f/ p, k9 N' s+ I8 \9 |' A4 o8 F2 j
China lands nuclear strike-capable bombers on South China Sea islands/ D) F& ~% X; o5 Q$ D

( s* ]& f/ {: A中国在南海岛礁起降有核打击能力的轰炸机(评论)
1 l. s; E+ k/ d- \) ~7 o; U1 o/ }

! R& J* J1 ^. c* }/ ~& l1 d
% D7 R7 X0 @$ V& s: K$ \4 P' V评论翻译
- T7 Z' `* s+ q! r+ O$ S8 J4 m* u: p3 q8 V  m4 Y
[–]TA_faq43 2 18 , D) z8 x* i9 D8 ~
Crimea and South China Sea islands are going to be two textbook examples of how to expand your territory in the 21st Century. Keep saying we’re not, until you’ve already done it, then claim it was yours all along. Fait accompli.
+ z; |& r/ p' x5 _I can’t believe how China managed to fool the West for so long when it’s happening in plain view, and how ineffective the West is at stopping them. It’s a master stroke in diplomacy and realpolitik.
. d5 g: ~" n+ r1 m- C4 ]0 f8 Z( k8 g8 D& G' F/ T
& a) a- K6 ]2 ^# [  k我真不敢相信,中国在如此长时间的时间里竟然如此愚弄西方,而西方却无能为力。中国真是外交和现实政治中的大师。
# I( d; f; r3 w+ P# t% Z" Q& J, {! i4 o( E
[–]charletech 16 17 / P1 R: A, l; U8 c8 d9 l
This is one of the benefits of a single party regime, you can keep consistent goals for decades until completion, rather than administrations that think only 4 years down the road and often undoes what the precious administration accomplished.
% x! [- I1 z! h% e5 w; B% S2 S# q, Z
这是单一政党制度的好处之一,你可以在几十年里保持连续一贯的目标,直到完成,而不像那些只考虑4年之后如何,而且往往会毁掉政府已完成的宝贵成就的(西方)政府。8 W  p" t; `# X0 k& m( I0 Q) t9 f

* s/ h' H3 R' R* }& ], D[–]reddits_dead_anyway 0 12
) J4 t4 `* J  K5 T4 TI'm not sure why your are being downvoted... This is actually pretty insightful and objective... "Patriots" don't wanna hear facts?
+ m& Y6 d5 I" q* |8 z, s
$ Z4 R& i0 z, A; {3 A我不知道你为什么会被踩……实际上你提出的观点是很有见地的和客观的……“爱国者”不想听到事实吗?
. N, g" y* G, Y' S/ n7 s' W: |* v0 s
[–]-6-6-6- 0 3 - @7 L' Z! W; O" O
Simply because it's one of the only benefits of a single party regime.
* C, g1 a5 Q0 I* S' `
" Y" F0 t8 T+ K$ e) \; N9 o仅仅因为这是单一政党政权仅有的好处之一。
' r4 r$ Z2 P6 M7 K5 a% ?. c* c6 t5 @4 n. H4 L. z- l
[–]Deep-Sixd -11 17
$ {$ y$ I9 A6 y/ B% G: lHere’s the thing. We haven’t had a proper territorial / land grab war between states since 1945. It really went out of fashion for a long time. There were little conflicts - China invaded Tibet, the nameless multiple party war in the Congo for much of the 2000s - but for the most part they were confined within borders, until Iraq grabbed Kuwait. After that, nothing until more or less simultaneously Russia grabs a chunk of the Ukraine and China snaffles up and coverts these islands. Are either of those things worth a great power war? The Ukraine looks like it is turning into a Russian cluster fuck rivalled only by Chechnya, and as for these islands, aircraft carriers that can’t move don’t really compare to the multiple fleets that the US can disperse. So, probably not.! [" Y2 I) h8 G: q& x4 J0 g* n
' L7 ?) l1 z1 }" i- M+ [
事情是这样的。自1945年以来,我们从未遇到过严格意义上的领土/土地争夺战。这种抢领土大战真的已经不流行很长时间了。几乎没有冲突——中国进军XZ,在21世纪头10年的大部时间里,在刚果发生了不知名的多党战争——但大多数情况下,这些冲突都被限制在边界之内,直到伊拉克占领了科威特。在此之后,几乎一直相安无事,直到几乎同时发生了俄罗斯夺取了一大块乌克兰领土,以及中国偷偷摸摸地填海造岛。但这二者是否值得发起一场大国战争?乌克兰看起来像是正在自我转变成俄罗斯族群,tmd只有车臣才能与之抗衡,而对于这些岛屿,无法移动的航空母舰与美国能够散部署的多支舰队相比,实在是微不足道。所以,战争估计不会发生。/ p5 g4 M# _) `! B

, k, {- l: T" g6 P  H[–]shaunyip 3 12
) |6 V' U: o5 R7 g" a  uChina didn’t invade Tibet. While China never governed Tibet before 1950, Tibet has been China’s territory since hundreds of years ago.- s# U7 [  {; i" Y, k9 U" s- z
# `; d1 w! N) U& t0 ?" f
中国没有侵略XZ。1950年以前,中国从未直接管理过XZ,但自几百年前以来,XZ一直都是中国的领土。: ?  F6 j0 _/ Z' T" r
3 J  A7 n$ [, Z% i/ S
[–]superaural 0 7
9 u0 _! l0 w/ H$ C9 I5 ais it fear mongering when china doesn't want to recognize international arbitration rulings? it's like if your neighbor moved your fence and put rabid dogs near the new division so you can't complain. I'd say china has imperialist ambitions in the east too
# x/ s  i) B2 y! y# E: U. u6 w% u+ v3 P" o: I  U
) X2 `2 l# i; z& Z. ?% M! f1 u0 C8 C. G7 z/ b0 u3 g
[–]Xeltar -2 11 % S; d  q& L/ e: I7 N: I
China wants to establish regional hegemony, in order to do that you have to have control of your waters. The US obviously is uncomfortable with China having the final say along several important shipping routes. I'm not really sure whats a good system to have, on one hand, the Chinese do have a legitimate claim on the South China Sea, but it pushes out more US aligned countries.
. W% Z' j) K' ~+ r+ ~1 F7 Z7 E3 ?* g( b+ d8 ~  h* g/ B
中国想要建立地区爸权,为了做到这一点,你必须控制你的水域。显然,美国对中国在几条重要航线上拥有终极话语权感到不爽。我不太确定应该有个什么样的好体系,一方面,中国确实在南中国海拥有合法主张,但它挤压了更多的美国结盟国家。! F, r, v/ N5 D

% s2 p$ Z  g3 ^$ F3 Y[–]TravelPhoenix 18 17
0 n* B4 r' |9 @: a. H0 [: Y1 {China always says they do not want to be on the offensive and they are a peaceful nation not seeking territorial control of any area. So why the bombers and the island development?
; M$ Z& t3 T' K/ e$ R2 Q% e) @
6 C; D, m5 W% I0 S/ l5 Y中国总是说,他们不希望发动进攻,他们是一个和平的国家,不寻求对任何地区的领土控制。那么轰炸机和岛屿建设怎么解释呢?
( T( v8 Q, _& O  \) |) C5 _1 H7 E2 u, u5 x- Q
[–]Bennelong[S] 16 17
! X) X% U! c- V4 R5 KThey have always wanted control of the South China Sea, and have already passed laws giving themselves the right to board ships and expel them from the waters. I would expect them to start charging fees for safe passage through the area, and to blockade countries in the area that don't submit completely to China's unreasonable demands.
# n' m9 _* d7 t& V. V* ^) [* U7 e0 A4 i3 e* z" x% R/ b
; p+ Y+ ]' X+ I4 r% F- u( e  n2 k. @- p" z1 W& X( x7 E
[–]mwobuddy -25 17
" d1 R$ U8 Q6 V/ X+ j1 f. a3 PNice strawman.1 p! _& g( o0 X) M
The U.S. always says its trying to be peaceful and not police the world so why has The U.S. Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years.4 f, i% H9 p3 b$ e# f/ @
  s) ?6 T" X, \: p
完美的稻草人谬误。" G$ p- ]6 m- T2 Y4 U
+ r- p: Z; Q8 |- Z+ |5 Q% x+ W1 A2 c
[–]Bennelong[S] 15 17
7 u5 e% v; K; X. kThis thread is about China's bad behaviour. If you need to vent your spleen about America, start another thread about it./ u& k3 C& U! f
; C6 K$ x& r0 _- G# e
这个主题是在讨论中国的不良行为。如果你需要发泄你对美国的不满,请另开一个主题。: d2 V3 J+ ?+ q2 y3 T4 A& ~
3 p) ^) R0 Y5 j) {, x
[–]TravelPhoenix 23 16
% }3 t6 |# {# D) `0 q3 O# LChina defense policy is not a strawman.! k$ J5 Z- o' r

1 a. Y0 |8 o: W- Z" u  K中国的国防策略可不是“稻草人”。
/ z7 R/ c# M" e. @- t" ^1 N. D. M+ |) u) P& ^
[–]Bennelong[S] 9 16 , _% c! p" r8 V; d
This is not about defence. This is using their military to illegally seize and occupy territories belonging to other clountries.! s5 w7 T( q6 a# {3 b

; s% z4 s6 R  Y7 i这与国防无关。这是利用他们的军队非法侵占和占领属于其他国家的领土。2 F( ~: E2 o# v* X: D5 h4 A* D
2 R2 }5 Q: S# _5 j3 ?
[–]TravelPhoenix 0 15 6 A7 f9 y7 L  _6 z" s9 g; W
That is a defense strategy. Offensive capabilities are tied to military defense policy.' h8 l& K& f. H/ e0 d) I7 u5 D  j
* m. P) ]! m& f6 r: {- h1 n1 V% K
这是一种防御策略。进攻能力与军事防御政策有关。& j8 Z5 S: [; Y+ P7 ~
8 O9 h" Y  ?* _. b
[–]CitationX_N7V11C 2 14
9 C0 R$ Z: i& v* N; P- ?Because the world is full of violent primates who won't leave each other the hell alone so we have to bully them in to behaving.) \6 [7 I# [. V4 n( d% I2 h

) p9 k  b5 G1 L' H0 b+ Z# w  g8 D0 v因为这个世界满是暴力灵长类动物,它们不会tmd就这么不干涉别国了,所以我们必须把靠自己它们赶走。
. e1 G* |3 M' A$ w, l' `, k2 h/ c- ^  H
[–]Trumpatemybabies 5 12
5 g" @3 B+ }% d2 f% ^China learned a few vauable lessons 1860-1970.
! O- K8 x2 `. P  d
' N% N# f/ ~+ e2 Q( I- F0 {中国从1860年-1970年的经历中学到了一些有用的教训。) l  C% S4 A* w$ A
+ s' H! W1 _1 M; k! y  P
[–]TheQuixote2 -11 129 |0 Z% e* D4 B' C7 }  j
OMG OMG OMG OMG, someone else has a base outside of their country.6 n7 I% ~# H' q& m5 M8 |* z* P
6 {  H2 m, N& z) S  X. ~
天啊 天啊 天啊 天啊,有人在他们的国家之外拥有了一个基地。
& n& I6 I: Q/ h6 f& S; Y. q$ X9 A4 H
[–]BobsReddit_ -6 11
% [: x- K. Q% `. I  s, DSomehow, I don't really care that China is running exercises near it's country. I do care that we are trying to run the show off their coast. It's idiotic
4 P. ]4 H9 I( h9 G( p0 n& G, J  f, [6 s, l& `( O& B, r
" N" V7 P3 s! z" G* v
: d2 _5 s9 W' S: L  s& i[–]gawbles 3 11 ' T2 W8 o$ i& [
As long as they stay in international airspace, let them.
( K/ O3 h: B6 d4 f) f. B5 x: g+ Z) }8 K6 F' K
只要他们是待在国际水域,随他们去吧。" }# {# p2 s. X) G( |# n% U
. j$ c* d, H- R; t6 v
[–]LekeH5N1 -18 10
' B4 `6 {8 p+ H7 B" e+ `The South China Sea is sovereign Chinese territory and has been since ancient times.
  p$ ~# a( |7 x. |/ p
: i: y) d. g" [: f% g南海是中国的主权领土,自古以来就是中国的领土。
. V+ y" o8 `. A" |' \: t
- f( `. e% w1 O1 ?[–]gawbles 4 6
, R9 [1 X' i# Y2 `: yThat ancient sovereignty hasnt been asserted in hundreds of years. These days, theres international law around sea lanes. Asserting some broad ancient but not recent special ownership that extends beyond those intl limits is silly and should be ignored. I think thats the crux of the problem isnt it.
  t9 [; g# i* l- q+ T. r2 e% q) p1 I3 t4 b/ I" ^. B" A
那个古代主权的说法在几百年里都没有被主张。但今天,围绕海上航线有国际法。主张一些泛泛的、“自古以来的”、超出了国际法限制范围的主权,而不是近代特定的所有权的做法是愚蠢的,应该被无视。我认为这是问题的症结所在,难道不是吗。/ R0 l5 e" y# ~" q' Z

  r% }: D; W/ r* |, x" e' S0 t3 \* D[–]fernguts 8 11
4 [# I8 P  F8 p% ~! ~7 S& OIt could be a major destabilizer on the way to WWIII. A war between China and the Philippines (for example) would be a disaster for international stability.6 A7 y+ U# y: ]2 n! b$ O& _4 [0 Q/ p# B

! m% V0 M- P6 Q3 @& A4 S/ U这可能成为第三次世界大战的一个主要的不稳定诱因。中国和菲律宾之间的战争(举个例子)将成为国际稳定的一场灾难。- _/ l% |* I: c

- Q# X9 ?! F  `/ H[–]0belvedere 7 9 + l+ D  J) C: d. q  ?$ c9 _8 u3 \
There isn't going to be a war between China and the Philippines. China has already bought Duterte and the Philippine armed forces are a joke.6 ]: |" V0 `0 v  {& S2 S
, ]9 ~! [: k! }; h- h$ h3 @
+ t# }% ^2 Y& Z+ K: j7 g  U$ v0 W& v
[–]141252363452 -1 8 7 O! ~6 J' t2 v% m! V; l0 }
I'm not saying the SCS is worth WW3, but this is how you build a global empire, step by step. First, the South China Sea. "Not worth defending", says the United States. Then, something else. "Not worth defending", says the United States. And so on. And in a few decades, China will control most of the world's sea lanes and have replaced the US as the uncontested global military power.9 x* Q0 S! U0 c: n  s3 N
( B. c* x0 K: I3 b9 E% ~
我不是说南海争端值得全球为其打一场三战,但这就是如何一步一步建立一个全球帝国的方法。第一步,南海。美国说“不值得捍卫”。然后,别的什么,美国又说“不值得捍卫”。以此类推。再过几十年,中国将控制世界上大部的海上航线,并取代美国成为无可匹敌的全球军事力量。9 |" b. N/ Z5 z3 s. [4 h3 x% Q5 o9 F

" f2 s. Y- P! @" g: @% K[–]Xeltar -1 2 # l) d, a! V8 [5 P
Really would a strong China be bad for the world? Sure their governement is very different from ours but their people's lives are improving and their middle class lives reasonably well. Why do we have to see them as enemies needing to be stopped?# F( x# z& y% S

5 E% _/ A: r4 t3 I0 W. e一个强大的中国真地会对世界不利吗?诚然,他们的政府和我们的政府很不一样,但是他们人民的生活正在得到改善,而且他们的中产阶级生活得很好。为什么我们要把他们看作需要被阻止的敌人?8 l5 @3 ^! K; B+ \. L1 a# z( `

3 ~# N: w: \* V, G2 A& M! J[–]superaural -2 7 & B3 X4 c# B$ X+ U, t% Y. k: b+ `4 x
really? because a third of naval trade goes through that area. worth trillions actually. not to mention resources like oil, which china is desperate for (they even loaned money to Venezuela in exchange for regular shipments of oil barrels)
' h8 \" C- |, N4 B' A; }: ?" W0 M8 h& e1 y; u2 N7 e
真的如此吗?因为三之一的海上贸易要经过那个地区。价值数万亿。更不用说像石油这样的资源了(他们甚至借钱给委内瑞拉以换取定期的石油海运)9 j' k$ X1 c5 j' i) ^

% g! y! F4 u3 T[–]superm8n 1 13
5 P4 ?' p. Q+ W( EThat's pretty much how a nation says; "This is mine now.".
5 Y( H+ W% x. B1 ?' l7 T2 j- n
7 t7 f" ^5 @0 V- Z  L这简直就是一个国家说“这里现在是我的了”的方式。
% `8 o  Z1 v* c% B& |7 j
! A8 J' J# l# f$ s) t4 Q/ b( Y% Z[–]Hogron555 18 12 , t1 ~7 h+ T- |0 `, K2 {' ^
Really? The US has nuclear strike capable bombers positioned all over the world.0 E# _7 Z! N( E- x9 r
; O/ R5 L8 m4 R6 }
真的吗?美国在世界各地都部署了具有核打击能力的轰炸机。; P3 E# Y% |4 F# `0 @

8 R+ G% i+ b: Y$ Q, j6 T[–]Xoor 9 12
3 S; {: C  C: K$ s! TUS doesn't want more surface area, it wants influence. Almost all countries on earth have to kiss the US' ass in one form or another.0 T# ?9 q7 b* R& B3 [

. u1 P  s: y% P+ `' |( [美国不想要更多的地表面积,它想要的影响力。几乎所有的国家都必须以这样或那样的方式跪舔美国。
7 C0 {9 ~3 a5 J6 i
* A' v- z8 j* J9 x, W" D7 W[–]frehas 7 9
4 y" n2 k+ n0 m6 QYou think china is just bullying the region because they want land? You'd be a fool to think they aren't vying for the same global influence that USA has. Establishing these bases in the SC sea expands their ability to project power on the SEA region and influence it's inhabitants.
8 g- S0 t, q- W' S$ @: W
/ T' U% U& O% b3 ]9 d* C你认为中国在qi负这个地区只是因为他们想要土地?你会傻到以为他们不会像美国那样争夺全球影响力。在南海建立这些基地,扩大了他们在海洋地区投射力量和影响其人民的能力。/ @% n' }0 y0 C/ N
. E0 M" v9 |; U% z3 C
[–]Xeltar 0 11
) ^, x$ l5 ]. B  u$ N# z) bThe Chinese want to achieve regional hegemony within Asia, and you have to have control of your waters to do that.  R. N3 g+ @2 N$ _( J8 s# H: E

8 d* ~3 n- A' p: O" N! F$ P中国人希望在亚洲实现地区主导权,那么它就必须得控制好自己的水域。
" U7 I$ Q6 ?6 @- M/ V+ {8 a  c% Y1 S: T  y. M# R/ Y; R
[–]0belvedere 3 9 - O: a8 V3 U/ \/ @9 Y) r. L: y
No, they have to take control of waters that aren't theirs to do that, which is what they have just done.' y3 t# F! v& |' b$ _
% f( G. R5 q$ r9 @8 h* L
' @' \8 b/ x1 |" `
2 k* \3 ?/ ^  k1 `6 d. m( P[–]Xeltar -3 9 , V. {' G- L! h5 C+ @5 ?" j
Who's is it then? Objectively that area is contested territory that no one's willing to back down over (Phillipines kinda relented due to a deal with China). Remember that Vietnam was the one who opened the can of worms by trying to build islands first. Before then, everyone was willing to just call it international waters. It's also called the South China Sea, I'm not going to really lose any sleep over China getting it.
, g' F) A8 R  k5 S! a
; E. E' J# d2 J, |: \6 S0 c4 X: w那么这些水域是谁的?客观上说,这一地区是一个没有人愿意让步的争议领土区(菲律宾因与中国的交易而有所缓和)。请记住,越南是第一个尝试建造岛屿的国家。在那之前,所有都愿意称之为国际水域。它也被称为南中国海,我不会因为中国得到它而寝食难安。$ z- E4 y# V6 w- l- u
) _. C' k) x. [* E" u) v5 L; }
[–]zetaroy 1 6 / ~: f! a2 d& y- v6 I
It's also called the South China Sea, I'm not going to really lose any sleep over China getting it.
) e$ x* ?# _: sBased on that logic, Mexico can claim Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida because it touches the Gulf of Mexico.
2 m" @) ^0 E9 Y+ p( X
+ f& {/ x6 P% E5 i- I! w, u“它也被称为南中国海,我不会因为中国得到它而寝食难安”
( a4 E3 c2 Q1 G& m4 _5 @按照你的理论,墨西哥也可以声索德克萨斯州、路易斯安那州、密西西比州、阿拉巴马州和佛罗里达州,因为它们和墨西哥湾接壤。% \$ c$ G/ {$ o& m" x8 g- |
; n( H1 b4 [; O" L/ t. }2 I
[–]Xeltar 1 2
* @* O0 G$ F0 z9 n9 B3 `" c. B2 jHow? Mexico has a claim on the gulf but that doesn't extend to land bordering water because Americans live on that land. Again, who should have the rights to SCS? I wouldn't mind someone else getting it, but it's not like anyone has a better or worse claim in that region.% g- X% H6 n3 V
. j/ ~7 {! t% {+ t
怎么会?墨西哥声索墨西哥湾的主权,但声索范围不能延伸到与陆地接壤的水域,因为美国人居住在这片土地上。再说一遍,谁应该拥有南海的主权?我不介意其他人得到它,但这不是说谁对这个地区的主权声索是好的,谁的声索是坏的。% n3 ]) J  X9 j6 x

- P' M; R3 D$ M/ s[–]scarberia123 20 10
( y; f! E9 j* c0 }6 g; ?International waters enforced by American navy, the bulk of China's oil supply ships through the Strait of Malacca, which in the event of a conflict, America's military bases in the region can choke off China's energy supply. Of course any rational leader would want to secure its energy lines., B7 E$ m3 @" r& v4 U+ O0 S# f
Also, most countries in the South China Sea have competing claims against each other, it's not China VS. everyone, it's everyone VS. everyone. The media just likes to portray China as the boogeyman here. Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei and the Phillipines all have contested territorial claims against each other, and some of them have also been militarizing artificial islands in the region.
- U" y5 m7 k% `/ Y3 ], C  bThe US regularly sends warships to the Taiwan Strait, 200km from mainland China, imagine how the US would feel if China sends warships to sail across Hawaii or Cuba?4 T8 }- B) I0 h$ f
& }: j8 q7 W- i( g
国际水域被美国海军严格控制,中国的大部石油运输船通过马六甲海峡,一旦发生冲突,美国在该地区的军事基地就会切断中国的能源供应。当然,任何理性的领导人都希望确保自己的能源安全。+ @, \: I+ ~, j2 D
而且,大多数南海国家都有相互重叠的领土主张,并不是中国VS所有国家的局面,而是各国之间的“混战”。媒体只是喜欢把中国描绘成这里的怪物。越南、印度尼西亚、文莱和菲律宾都对彼此提出领土要求,其中一些国家还在该地区的人工岛屿上部署武器。3 V/ c- b4 R( G9 M# [
# ]# B1 h" t# H6 ]3 Y2 z- ]# R& v) G5 a3 h6 e
[–]thedracle -8 10 * B; `% k+ s7 _8 ~, ^  S' K) F' y! c
The rest of the world should just keep open navigation and shipping everywhere else, and tax all of China's shipping, in case they want to do so with the South China Sea.) C. s* |; R) W
If one country has disproportionately benfitted from the status quo, it has been China.! l) z3 T" i- ^- t5 [. k1 K# f
And China is the only one of the territories you listed that claims the entire region right up to the borders of everyone else.
: Y; h" k1 I# V0 [, d1 A5 w+ v8 [! k  D& q
世界其他各国应该保持开放其他地区的航行和航运,并对中国的航运征税,以防他们想在南中国海也这样做。: y4 L+ Z/ V6 v% S" C; t
7 f  X. }( }# H6 u而中国就是你所列出的那些国家中唯一一个声索整个地区(其边界和所有其他国家边界接壤)主权的国家。2 f2 n. F% \2 F* G
# V: U- m7 F) |* m
[–]ToastyMustache 17 8 & e% Z" h, R2 Q  j( _
The US regularly sends warships to the Taiwan Strait, 200km from mainland China, imagine how the US would feel if China sends warships to sail across Hawaii or Cuba?
* o0 l/ a) q/ Y1 U% AThis claim is used a lot and it’s a fallacy, China and Russia both have done so in the past, we don’t care so long as they follow international maritime law. Hell Russian bombers regularly fly close to Alaska, and both Chinese and Russian airplanes fly over our warships regularly. We only complain when it’s categorized as unsafe.
$ B. U8 a2 O+ J0 G, i% O9 o: Y- o8 W  \. ^, {
5 f1 N& e3 ?/ n' A! w. d& B这一主说法被大量使用,这是一个谬论,中国和俄罗斯过去都干过这种事,只要他们遵守国际航海法,我们就不会在意。俄罗斯的轰炸机经常飞到靠近阿拉斯加的地方,中国和俄罗斯的飞机经常飞越我们的军舰。当它们的行为被认定为不安全行为的时候,我们只会抱怨一下。8 |& C3 \2 e' X( Q
2 Z( h' N7 @: M& k. Y. ?8 O
[–]alex_wifiguy 2 1
4 x4 ^% g" A. I+ z4 B4 _A few H-6K bombers to be specific. Chinese H-6 bombers were used to dropped nine nuclear devices at test sites. H-6Ks are newer with greater missile capacity, upgraded radar systems, larger engine inlets, reinforced frame/structure, etc.
9 V0 F/ w$ ~6 b9 e8 U# F* [, ^
! L. G8 P  H" l一些轰-6K轰炸机是具体的。中国的轰-6轰炸机曾被用于在试验场投掷了9枚核弹。轰-6K是更新的型号,且具有更强的导弹轰炸能力,海域升级的雷达系统,更大的发动机进气口,加强了机身/结构等。
: P! C5 E- K! h/ M7 l/ h; `0 T: p9 i/ }) ~$ c( L/ ?9 `, O
[–]nzwasp -7 11
' O$ j1 D+ i1 P* KDo they have nukes though?
; V$ W& Y4 V8 E. f6 q5 B" y7 c, m- }) D+ e- G2 Z6 E& g
它们挂核弹了吗?# D! d$ K! h, [5 M. X( _
( j: e: f4 u% K% H7 R. x9 S8 U
[–]nikaone 0 11 0 a+ a6 z$ I) r" U4 `7 Q1 U; B
Take it easy, international friends. H-6k is a very old plane. Its prototype is Tu-16, served in 60's. Why China send a nuclear strike capable bomber there, cuz China don't have other bombers. China have H-5, H6 and J-7 series. If other country say no to this, I think China would like to buy some ordinary bombers to replace these old USSR ones.- \6 g! `" c  S/ c; G2 a
. d  X$ D+ l! W- c0 K* p
$ \: D% \; {& J7 f! @/ a
; ?8 M( g% {( R& a6 N[–]Nixon4Prez 14 9
0 [9 s  U( v% h  O/ LThe H-6K is pretty ancient but so are the Tu-95 and B-52. The important part is they can carry nuclear cruise missiles with thousands of km of range. Then it doesn't matter how obsolete the aircraft is.
& P5 I2 R) f1 a4 I
: [  f* h9 M+ g& V4 E/ I2 b4 ?6 F轰-6K很老了,但是图-95和B-52也很古老。重要的是他们可以携带有数千公里射程的核巡航导弹。这么一来,飞机型号有多老就无关紧要了。
5 Z; D2 b" v" \9 e4 G) b! F
: @9 z1 N7 c6 X' R. R7 Y[–]comprehensiveleague 6 10
, _- Z! ^& J( y3 N" dpeaceful rise
8 r5 r" i' s+ X8 R. A9 o" M/ c) Z- K$ D  l8 r5 v6 o- C
“和平崛起”6 ~1 x! J  l! K) C
6 v/ k, t+ G+ F& R' |7 V- G
[–]Manch3st3rIsR3d -9 10 0 ]$ a4 E. k8 ?7 R, q. b
I think this is a disturbing development. China is capable of just about anything these days, so SE Asia better watch their shit. It's a show of "we can nuke you anytime, suckas', and they probably could.8 N1 ?: {! S' T% B
6 g* _5 f5 p! J7 e, f7 {
我认为这是一个令人不安的进展。中国现在有能力做任何事情,所以东南亚最好注意他们的行动。这是一场“我们随时可以用核弹丢你”的表演,而且他们很有可能做到。  t% A& u# E2 R- b

$ n0 {- v1 c$ x2 ~7 _) P9 E( n8 R[–]levelworm -2 10
0 g( I; u. H8 PRelax, just H-6K...- k3 {; @2 W- Y/ s& y/ A' q3 `* ?
7 y3 i) P# A. H# T: I
4 U- `7 A* Z# F4 ^- P. z
9 j6 e9 X9 a9 |0 T9 h; @: x$ E3 P[–]right_mind_mechanic -1 9 , z) j( a4 b( _
They have reached b29 fortress capabilities.
- f/ ~/ |! r  W# \* d9 {
3 t# _4 a0 \) \5 K1 k* v他们已经到达了B-29“超级空中堡垒”(译注:一种二战轰炸机,日本最喜欢的轰炸机)的战斗力。. ~+ T; ?' v: M) |% P

. S1 s% S! U. I$ r[–]ALittleLearningOklahoma -8 1 ; h9 t# ~4 Y0 I$ @7 B
That's a totally outdated delivery system.
" v6 H2 F4 r1 w! @) A
+ }, E. n3 m4 z0 K这完全就是过时的武器载具。
' h: {; |+ S+ _% Q% m; s9 N8 Y( f0 f' a" b4 {1 v9 f+ h
[–]standard_schnauzer 11 1 ' T' @' J8 m" e) H! C, d
Depends on what you are delivering and where.
" d( v* A& F* C" `
; A6 R/ s6 V, t/ C  H  H7 V& R% T2 q取决于你要搭载何种武器,送到哪里。8 |+ X- ^. x$ V7 g# t
& y9 a) z  B" ^/ ~8 _
[–]WhereCanISquanch -9 19
! q. _% R) U/ l8 D( Z: U, ^Is the United States a “civilized” country? We bomb hospitals and kill civilians in drone strikes pretty regularly. We call the cops on black people in everyday situations for feeling threatened. Or do you only disparage entire countries based on the actions of its government when it’s Israel?/ P2 K1 M' H& C( |. K& m$ g- D
2 c; L/ N  N/ Q/ m. s) m5 w; {! _2 E6 Q
7 @+ L& v- s% C* |" @3 y6 H, B* Q
0 W- P. c6 t9 \+ d% s5 Y( 本文已被整理选入“国外译帖”栏目,欢迎大家访问:http://www.kanshij.com/community/country/england/16555.html
附件: 您需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?注册  
高级模式 | 发新话题
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies