用户名:   密码:

当前位置:首页社区国外译帖加拿大西方网民:我们应该在朝鲜战争中向中国扔原子弹吗?
看世界译帖
加拿大

西方网民:我们应该在朝鲜战争中向中国扔原子弹吗?


Should We Have Used Nukes Against China During Korea?
译者:yayayaya 等     发布时间:2013-12-18     超过 0 位网友阅读

为什么我们不越过三八线...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中国长城以内?... 并把它一砖一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一劳永逸地把他们炸回“石器时代”?

原文链接:http://historum.com/war-military-history/34247-should-we-have-used-nukes-against-china-during-korea.html

Should We Have Used Nukes Against China During Korea?
我们应该在朝鲜战争中向中国扔原子弹吗?

朝鲜核战

ReaganSmash
From: Canada

Should America have used nukes against Communist China?
As many will know, the United Nation's commander in the Korean War Douglas MacArthur had wanted to use them on Chinese airfields in Manchuria, and possibly cities. We was later fired from his command by President Truman.

Should we have hit em with nukes?

Personally, I think that by using nukes we would have ran the risk of a much larger war with the Soviets, we wouldn't have the moral high ground if we totally destroyed a bunch of Chinese cities. We still should have used bombing raids though, not nukes.

美国应该在朝鲜战争中向中国扔原子弹吗?

大家也许知道,联合国方面的指挥官麦克阿瑟曾经想用原子弹轰炸中国东北的飞机场或者甚至是城市。杜鲁门后来撤销了他的指挥官职务。

那我们当年是否应该对他们使用核武器?

就我个人而言,我认为如果使用核武器,那我们就会冒与苏联发生更大规模战争的风险,如果完全摧毁掉一大批中国的城市我们就不会再有道德制高点。所以我们依然应该用普通轰炸方式而不是核武器。



--------------- 以下译者: yayayaya ---------------
更多国外译帖欢迎访问:看世界口碑网  http://www.kanshij.com/community/country/

Helios

It's realy hard for me to believe that anyone sane would propose something like that, what was MacArthur thinking is the better question. We would have had a nuke war, because i realy do not see Soviets standing still in this scenario.
   
我很难相信任何有理智的人会提出类似的提议,麦克阿瑟当时到底是怎么想的这反倒是个更好的问题。他会令我们陷进一场核战争,因为我真的没有看到苏联在这种情况下还能保持沉默的可能性。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China

Thornton Melon (Rodney Dangerfield) expresses the sentiments of the Generation before me very well in Back to School, How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel... and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China... and take it apart brick by brick... and nuke them back into the ****in' stone age forever?

Nuking them wasn't the answer, but there should have been an all out war that involved the world then. Perhaps if we had stopped the Red Chinese and the soviets the cold war would have been shorter and there would be almost 2 billion more free people in the world today. Maybe not! Who knows?

If the U.S. had truly ever wanted China to be nuked they missed their opportunity in the 1970's when the Soviet union           wished to invade China.

罗德尼·丹泽菲尔德(译注:美国著名喜剧演员)在《回到学校》这部电影里非常好地表达过那代人的这样的情绪:为什么我们不越过三八线...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中国长城以内?... 并把它一砖一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一劳永逸地把他们炸回“石器时代”?

核轰炸他们不是个办法,那样必然会引发全世界的全面战争。不过或许这能令我们提早结束与苏联和红色中国的冷战,今天就会有将近20亿更自由的人在世界上生活。但也可能相反!谁知道呢?

如果美国真的想核爆中国那么他们在1970年错过了一次机会,当时苏联曾经想侵略中国。



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.

Because there's no way to know how the Soviets would have responded to a nuclear attack on China, there is no way to be certain whether it would have been the right decision. I suspect the Soviets would have mounted attacks both in Europe and Asia which would be the beginning of WWIII which would almost certainly become a nuclear war. In the final analysis, nuclear war was avoided. However, the world now has to deal with North Korea which might launch a nuclear war anyway.
   
因为无法知道苏联会怎么回应对中国核攻击,无法确定它是否会是一个正确的决定。 我猜苏联将会全面轰炸欧洲和亚洲,由此拉开第三次世界大战的序幕,而且它几乎可以肯定将会是一场核战争。

说到底,核战争被避免了。然而,现在全世界不得不去处理有可能引发核战的北朝鲜的问题。



ReaganSmash
From: Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
Thornton Melon (Rodney Dangerfield) expresses the sentiments of the Generation before me very well in Back to School, How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel... and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China... and take it apart brick by brick... and nuke them back into the ****in' stone age forever?

That was a great scene, the professor's response to the girl about Vietnam was even better.
Stopping the Communists during the Chinese Civil would have been hard, and probably not possible.

引用:
“罗德尼·丹泽菲尔德(译注:美国著名喜剧演员)在《回到学校》这部电影里非常好地表达过那代人的这样的情绪:为什么我们不越过三八线...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中国长城以内?... 并把它一砖一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一劳永逸地把他们炸回“石器时代”?”

那将会是一个大场面,这位教授在对有关越南妹妹问题上的回应也许更出色一点。

想在中国内战期间阻止共产党人是很难的,也许根本就是不可能的。



laketahoejwb
From: Incline Village near Lake Tahoe

President Truman said no and that is good enough for me. Ta heck with Mac Arthur.

我很高兴杜鲁门总统说没门。麦克阿瑟去死吧。



Inc
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaganSmash
Should America have used nukes against Communist China?
Should we have hit em with nukes?

I don't know - but I do find the wording of your post insentitive.
         
引用:
作者:ReaganSmash
“我们当年是否应该对他们使用核武器?”

我不知道 - 但我确实觉得你这帖子里的话太麻木不仁了。



ReaganSmash
From: Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incitatusenator
I don't know - but I do find the wording of your post insentitive.
Why? I continued by saying it was a horrible idea.
         
引用:
作者:Incitatusenator
“我不知道 - 但我确实觉得你这帖子里的话太麻木不仁了。”

为什么呢? 我后面紧跟着说那是一个可怕的想法。



pablo668
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.

Ahhhh no, no you shouldn't have.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that not everyone will have the same outlook/opinions as you.....or even political viewpoint.
Vapourising them with Nukes isn't the answer.
Nor is starting a worldwide nuclear conflict, or even a conventional one, again, only 6 or so years after the last one.

Perhaps conventional attacks across the chinese border at their staging points but even this would have been diplomatically iffy as far as the Russians were concerned.

Two questions,

1) Wenge, what is your story? You live in China yet seem to harbour some hatred to the chinese (maybe just the communists), enlighten me.

2) Historybuffkg70, with what are the North Koreans going to launch a nuclear war?
I don't think the North Koreans have many nukes to begin with, they certainly don't have deployable ones nor a reliable delivery system. I don't even think the Nukes they do have are particularly cutting edge/reliable either.
This is as far as I know anyway.
         
啊哈,不不,你不应该有这种想法。

生活中一个不幸的事实,就是并非每个人都会和你有着相同的观点和看法.....哪怕是政治方面。

用核弹把对方都蒸发掉可不是一个正确的答案。引起世界范围的核冲突,甚至只是常规冲突也不是。再强调一下,当时离上一场大战结束只有6年的时间。

也许我们可以用常规方法攻击中国境内的物质中转站,但即使这样,考虑到俄国人,这也是个无法预知结果的做法。

我提两个问题,

1)Wenge,你经历过什么事情吗?你生活在中国但似乎还怀有对中国的某种仇恨(也许只是对共产党),告诉我一下。

2)Historybuffkg70,北朝鲜为什么要发动核战争呢?

首先,我不认为北朝鲜有许多核武器,他们肯定也没有部署过可靠的投送系统。我甚至不认为他们有特别尖端/可靠的核弹。

反正这是我现在所知道的。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo668
Two questions,
1) Wenge, what is your story? You live in China yet seem to harbour some hatred to the chinese (maybe just the communists), enlighten me.

I have nothing but deep, undying love for the people of China. I despise the Chinese government, their policies and their treatment of the Chinese people these past 62 years. No one and I do mean no one can ever accuse me of harboring any ill feelings for the normal people of this great country.
         

引用:
作者:pablo668
“我提两个问题,
1)Wenge,你经历过什么事情吗?你生活在中国但似乎还怀有对中国的某种仇恨(也许只是对共产党),告诉我一下。”

没有,我对中国人民只有深厚,永恒的爱。我鄙视中国政府,还有他们62年来的政策以及对待中国人民的做法。没有人,我的意思是没有任何人可以指责我对这个伟大国家的普通民众怀有不好的感觉。



Mandate of Heaven

No, but they should have used the nuclear monopoly deterence to their advantage, which they didn't do very well.

不,但他们应该使用核垄断来赚点好处,但他们没把它利用好。



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo668
2) Historybuffkg70, with what are the North Koreans going to launch a nuclear war?
I don't think the North Koreans have many nukes to begin with, they certainly don't have deployable ones nor a reliable delivery system. I don't even think the Nukes they do have are particularly cutting edge/reliable either.

North Korea is working both on nuclear weaponry and rocketry. There is disagreement over how close they are to actually deploying nuclear weapons, but everyone agrees that it appears they will have them fairly soon. They are also working on some fairly long range missiles which, by some accounts, may be able to reach Japan, and, eventually Alaska. Accuracy isn't really an issue because their most likely target would be Seoul which is just south of the demilitarized zone.

The U.S. has quite a large number of troops in South Korea. They serve both as a deterrence against North Korean military action and will also be a "tripwire" because any attack on South Korea will necessarily result in numerous American casualties--especially if it is a nuclear attack. These American casualties combined with America's affinity for South Korea would pressure the American government to retaliate heavily against North Korea. China has already steadfastly defended North Korea in one war. They would almost certainly do so again. This would bring the number of nuclear powers at war to at least two even if North Korea only launched a conventional attack. The rest of the world's powers would also play their roles. This means that North Korea wouldn't even have to launch a nuclear attack to initiate a nuclear, global war.
         
引用:
“作者:pablo668
2)Historybuffkg70,什么是北韩要发动核战争?
首先,我不认为北朝鲜有许多核武器,他们肯定也没有部署过可靠的投送系统。我甚至不认为他们有特别尖端/可靠的核弹。”

朝鲜正在同时研发核武器和火箭。也许对他们何时能部署核武器的问题上人们有不同的看法,但所有人都认为他们很快就会拥有这些。 他们还在研发长程导弹,射程基本上能到达日本,并且最终打到阿拉斯加。导弹精度不是一个真正的问题,因为他们最有可能的目标将是非军事区南部的首尔。

美军在韩国有相当多的部队。他们既是对北朝鲜军事行动的阻吓,但同时也是一个“触发器”,因为任何对韩国的攻击也将导致美军的大量伤亡 - 尤其是核攻击。 美军的伤亡加上美韩的亲盟关系将迫使美国政府不得不以沉重的打击来报复朝鲜。中国在上一场战争中已经坚定地捍卫了朝鲜。他们几乎肯定会再次这样做。这将使至少两个核大国被卷入一场战争中,即使朝鲜只是发动常规攻击。世界上的其他强国到时也将发挥各自的作用。这意味着,朝鲜甚至不必发动核攻击就能引发一场全球性战争。



Mandate of Heaven

Quote:
Originally Posted by histobuffkg70
China has already steadfastly defended North Korea in one war. They would almost certainly do so again.

If you think this current China is like the Cold War China and that Chinese people whom are highly educated, well off, and have relative amount of political freedom and freedom of speech are going to give them all up to help a poverty-stricken country (no stake whatsoever) led by, even acknowledged by the Chinese, a leader on the fringe, you are not well informed of the current situation.

There's only one Mao in China in an non-imperial system. People are already rioting left and right with the current relatively moderate and opening government. If another Mao came about, people would revolt.
         
引用:
作者:histobuffkg70
“中国在上一场战争中已经坚定地捍卫了朝鲜。他们几乎肯定会再次这样做。”

如果你觉得现在的中国还像冷战时期的中国,而且普遍受过高等教育,家境殷实,有一定的政治和言论自由的中国民众还会以他们的全部力量来帮助一个贫困的(没有任何好处),被一个连中国人也承认被边缘化了的领导者带领下的国家,那你对目前的形势还真不算了解。

在非帝制的中国只会有一个毛泽东。人们已经在左倾和右倾的骚乱中得到了目前相对较温和及开放的政府。如果这时候再来一个毛泽东,人们会造反的。



Zeno

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven
If you think this current China is like the Cold War China and that Chinese people whom are highly educated, well off, ....
Offcourse the "Chinese people whom are highly educated, well off, and have relative amount of political freedom and freedom of speech" are still the minority.

Quote:
It's not as if incomes are stagnant in China—anything but. In the first half of 2010 per capita income rose 13 percent in the countryside, to $935 a year, and 10 percent in the cities, to $2,965 a year. Nevertheless, swelling slums in the suburbs of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou attest to a yawning wealth discrepancy between thousands of newly minted rich and millions of poor.
Quote:
One reason is a system that blocks an estimated 150 million or more rural migrant workers from gaining access to benefits such as health care, education, and pensions available to urban residents. As a result, migrants are forced to save more of their wages to cover medical expenses and their retirements, says Li. Their incomes are also getting pinched by higher food prices (inflation is hovering around 5 percent) and rising housing prices (up 6.4 percent in December on an annual basis).
China's Growing Income Gap - BusinessWeek
         
引用:
作者:天命
“如果你觉得现在的中国还像冷战时期的中国,而且普遍受过高等教育,家境殷实....”

“普遍受过高等教育,家境殷实,有一定的政治和言论自由的”中国人绝对还是少数。

引用: “国民收入的增涨在中国并没有停滞。 2010年上半年农村人均收入增长了13%,至每年935美元,城市则增长了10%,达每年2965美元。 然而,在北京,上海和广州郊区贫民窟的增加证明了贫富差距在几千新崛起的富人与百万穷人间正缓慢扩大。”

引用:“其中一个原因是一项制度限制了1.5亿以上的农民工享受到诸如医疗,教育,养老等提供给城镇居民的福利。 因此,新移民被迫节省更多的工资来支付医疗和他们退休后的费用,李说。 他们的收入也越来越受食品价格上涨(通货膨胀率徘徊在5%左右)和住房价格上涨(每年十二月份上升6.4%)所挤压。 ”  —— “中国的收入差距扩大” - 《商业周刊》



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven
There's only one Mao in China in an non-imperial system. People are already rioting left and right with the current relatively moderate and opening government. If another Mao came about, people would revolt.

I remember Tiananmen Squarea, and I don’t see how the Chinese can truly be considered to be free. If the regime wants its citizens to do something, they will force them to do it—even if they have to kill some of them to force them to comply. I certainly consider the regime more than willing and able to force their citizens to join the military and to fight against South Koreans and Americans again. The Chinese government also just publicly reaffirmed its strong relationship with North Korea and has also been steadfast in its desire for North Korea to be a buffer against South Korean and American influence in Asia-Pacific region. There is a good article on this in today’s Huffington Post which is about as current as is possible. The link to the article is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20 ... rea-_n_1101050.html

引用:
作者:天命
“在非帝制的中国只会有一个毛泽东。人们已经在左倾和右倾的骚乱中得到了目前相对较温和及开放的政府。如果这时候再来一个毛泽东,人们会造反的。”

我记得天/an/门,我看不出中国人能够真正被认为是自由的。如果政府希望国民去做一些事情,就会强迫他们去做,即使要杀死他们中的一些来迫使他们遵从。 我认为这个政权肯定会愿意并能够迫使本国公民参军,并再次对韩国人和美国人开战。 
中国政府公开重申其与朝鲜牢固的合作关系,也一直坚定地期望朝鲜能成为反对韩国和美国在亚太影响力的缓冲区。

今天的《赫芬顿邮报》上有一篇关于当前形势的很好的文章。这是链接: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20 ... REA-_n_1101050.html



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen

Quote:
Hudson Harbor tested "actual functioning of all activities which would be involved in an atomic strike, including weapons assembly and testing, leading, ground control of bomb aiming". The bombing run data indicated that atomic bombs would be tactically ineffective against massed infantry, because the "timely identification of large masses of enemy troops was extremely rare
Nuke orders were signed by Truman but they were deemed pretty useless against massed ground forces. They may have worked on the supply bases in China... however, that would have initiated attacks on Japan by Soviet bombers. There was also the intervention of the French and British worried that an all out war on China would weaken NATO and leave it without its biggest partner should the Soviets decided to march into West Germany. Chairman Mao was also on record as saying that China would survive a Nuclear war, and with 80-90% of the Chinese living in the countryside, some probably would have. It was a little like the dilemma we face now with Iran. Short of occupying the country nothing would have worked.
         
引用: 哈德逊哈伯曾测试“在实际操作中会被原子武器攻击影响的各类活动,包括武器装配和调试,运输,地面制导炸弹瞄准等”。 轰炸实测数据表明,原子弹在战术上对集结步兵无效,因为“及时发现大规模敌军集结是极为罕见的”。

核攻击命令是由杜鲁门签署的,但它被视为对付地面集结部队好看不中用。 它也许对中国的供应基地能起作用... 然而,这会引发苏联轰炸机开始对日本进行攻击。还有法国和英国担心对中国的战争会削弱北约的实力,使当苏军挺进西德的时候他们无法得到强大的伙伴援助。

毛主席语录里的话还说过,中国能在核战争中生存下来,中国80-90%的人口生活在农村,不少人能活下来。 这很像我们现在面对伊朗的困境, 短时间占领该国没有任何作用。



Sergeant Van

Quote:
Originally Posted by histobuffkg70
North Korea is working both on nuclear weaponry and rocketry.. This means that North Korea wouldn't even have to launch a nuclear attack to initiate a nuclear, global war.

North Korea isn't quite as nuclear capable as we were just before the end of WWII. They've built and detonated two suspected nuclear devices (underground), and they were pretty crude devices, at that. As far as their missile technology is concerned, they've been capable of sending missiles over Japan for years. In fact, they've done so, several times. Their current ICMB technology is just shy of being able to put a satellite in orbit; the launch vehicle tends to fall apart about halfway there.

As far as China is concerned, China's had North Korea's back in the past, but only on the defensive end. They've made it pretty clear to North Korea that they'll back them again if we or South Korea ever decide to invade for whatever reason, but they've also made it pretty clear that if North Korea decides to launch an attack that they are on their own. China doesn't want to be drawn into an open conflict with another nuclear power any more than we do, and they definitely don't want to risk open hostilities with us because their economy is heavily dependent on us and the free trade agreements.

Oh, and by the way, there are only about 20k U.S. troops in South Korea. We've been drawing down for a decade or so.

引用:
作者:histobuffkg70
“朝鲜正在同时研发核武器和火箭…这意味着,朝鲜甚至不必发动核攻击就能引发一场全球性战争。”

朝鲜并不具备跟我们在二战结束时类似的核能力。 他们制造并引爆了两个疑似核装置(地下),那是相当粗糙的设备。至于导弹技术方面,他们很多年前就已经能够发射导弹打到日本。 事实上,他们已经好几次这样做了。 他们目前的太空技术只是不大能够把卫星送入轨道,运载火箭往往在飞到一半就分崩离析了。

就中国而言,中国过去是朝鲜的支持者,但只是在防守端。他们相当清楚地向朝鲜表明,如果我们或者韩国不管出于什么原因再次入侵朝鲜,中国会继续支持他们。但中国也相当清楚地表明,如果朝鲜决定发动攻击,那他们只能指望自己。 中国并不比我们更愿意被卷入与其他核大国的公开冲突,他们绝对不希望冒险与我们公开敌对,因为他们的经济在很大程度上依赖于与我们的自由贸易协定。

哦,顺便说一下,目前只有大约2万名美军驻扎在韩国。 我们已经撤剩不到十分之一左右。



corrocamino
From: Ozarkistan
I wonder what percentage of Americans advocate the "green glass" approach towards any polity that, according to some bully-pulpit type, is "evil".

我不知道有多少比例的美国人主张对这项策略(译注:指核爆中国)开“绿灯”,根据一些论坛所说,相当“邪恶”。



--------------- 以下译者: 天天 ---------------
更多国外译帖欢迎访问:看世界口碑网  http://www.kanshij.com/community/country/

scottishwarlord
From: Inpenetrable Couch Fort
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaganSmash
Should America have used nukes against Communist China?
As many will know, the United Nation's commander in the Korean War Douglas MacArthur had wanted to use them on Chinese airfields in Manchuria, and possibly cities. We was later fired from his command by President Truman.

Should we have hit em with nukes?

Personally, I think that by using nukes we would have ran the risk of a much larger war with the Soviets, we wouldn't have the moral high ground if we totally destroyed a bunch of Chinese cities. We still should have used bombing raids though, not nukes.
If MacArthur had his way we would surely be speaking Chinese right now or not at all.
         
引用:
作者:ReaganSmash
“美国应该在朝鲜战争中向中国扔原子弹吗?
大家也许知道,联合国方面的指挥官麦克阿瑟曾经想用原子弹轰炸中国东北的飞机场或者甚至是城市。杜鲁门后来撤销了他的指挥官职务。”

我们是否应该核爆他们?

就个人而言,我认为使用核武器会令我们冒与苏联发生更大规模战争的危险,如果完全摧毁一大批中国城市会令我们丧失道德制高点。所以我们还是应该使用制导炸弹而非核弹。

如果麦克阿瑟当初将他的想法付诸实践,那我们现在肯定都是在讲中文了,或者,没人再讲中文了。



Poly
From: Georgia, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
...if the U.S. had truly ever wanted China to be nuked they missed their opportunity in the 1970's when the Soviet union           wished to invade China.
Do you have a source for that?

I once read that a war between the USSR and PRC was far more likely than a war between NATO and the WP.

IIRC the USSR feared a Chinese invasion and focused a lot of resources into building lines of defense along the Sino-Soviet border.
         
引用:
作者:Wenge
“如果美国真的想核爆中国那么他们在1970年错过了一次机会,当时苏联曾经想侵略中国。 ”

你有相关资料不?

我曾经读过资料说苏联与中国之间爆发战争的可能性远比北约与华约之间的更大。

苏联担心中国入侵,集中了大量的资源沿中苏边境建立了防线。



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly
Do you have a source for that?

Here's a source: Report Claims Nixon Prevented Soviet Nuclear Attack On China In 1969
         
引用:
作者:Poly
“你有相关资料不? ”

这里有一个:报告称在1969年 尼克松阻止了苏联对中国进行核攻击。



Poly
From: Georgia, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by histobuffkg70
Here's a source: Report Claims Nixon Prevented Soviet Nuclear Attack On China In 1969

A Chinese historian - it would be interesting to see de-classified US papers on the event.
Or indeed any soviet documents.
I'd be very surprised if they existed - the USSR was never hell bent on nuclear war as the Cuban missile crisis and Berlin airlift proved.
It was fearful of foreign invasion though - hence the build up of defenses all along its border.

引用:
作者:histobuffkg70
“这里有一个:报告称在1969年 尼克松阻止了苏联对中国进行核攻击。”

一个中国历史学家 - 看看该事件的美国方面的解密文件是很有趣的。 或者苏维埃方面的真实档案。
如果它们真的存在的话那我会相当惊讶 - 苏联从来没有一意孤行地发动核战争,古巴导弹危机和柏林空运事件就是证明。
由于担心外国入侵,因此沿其边境建立防线。



Bystander

As a professional English teacher in SouthEast Asia, who has personally worked not only in China but also worked in/visited several of its neighbors, I have the following to say about the matter:

The use of nuclear weapons against China was justified when initially proposed, and is still justified today. There is nothing redeemable about Chinese culture or Chinese people. They represent a clear and present threat to world peace and democracy. The following statements are true:

North Korea owes much of its funding to China.
North Korea maintains several concentration camps, in the same manner as Hitler's Nazi Germany. If it was ethical to fight nazis, it is ethical to fight North Koreans, as well as their benefactors.

The Republic of China is a multi-party democracy that has a presidential system and universal suffrage. Yet its sovereignty is not recognized by supposedly pro-democratic nations, due to the fact that the PRC refuses to have diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes the ROC, and requires all nations with which it has diplomatic relations to make a statement recognizing its claims to Taiwan. As a result, there are only 23 states that have official diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.

……….. (delete)

Many factory owners have chosen to relocate their operations from North America to SouthEast asia, due to the lower minimum wage in that area, where working conditions are so terrible that workers are often driven to suicide.

The flood of cheap goods into the Western markets serves to undermine the local economy, ensuring that -unless things change- we will soon be forced to adopt similar working conditions in order to remain competitive.

Communist China is a clear and present threat to world peace and our way of life. They have demonstrated that they are aggressively expanding their borders both militarily and economically, domestically and abroad. If not stopped soon we will find ourselves at their mercy. It is imperative to act sooner rather than later.

China has not yet been bombarded by nuclear weapons, but in order to ensure our survival as democratic and free culture, it is imperative that we do so decisively and immediately.
Modern China is worse than Nazi Germany.
         
旁观者

作为一位曾亲自在中国工作,并且走访了它的几个周边领国的东南亚专职英语老师,对这个问题我有以下的意见:

对中国使用核武器在最初提出的时候就是合理的,直到今天仍然是合理的。 没有任何中国文化和中国人值得拯救。 他们是世界和平与民主的一个明确而现实的威胁。下面的说法是正确的:

北朝鲜的资金很多是中国提供的。
北朝鲜设立了好几个集中营,跟希特勒的纳粹德国完全一样。 如果与纳粹的斗争是道德的,那么打击朝鲜以及它的支持者,就是道德的。

中华民国是一个有总统制和普选的多党民主体制,然而其主权不被其他民主国家承认,原因在于中华人民共和国拒绝与任何承认中华民国的国家建立外交关系,并要求所有与它有外交关系的国家作出声明,承认台湾是属于它的。 其结果是,只有23个国家与中华民国有正式的外交关系。

(此处省去一段对X/Z的胡说八道言论。)

很多工厂都选择将他们的业务从北美转移到东南亚,该区域较低的工资标准和可怕的工作条件导致工人常常被迫自杀。

廉价商品涌入西方市场的作用是破坏了当地经济,我可以保证,除非事情有所改变,否则我们很快也会被迫采用类似的工作条件,以保持竞争力。

中国共CD对世界和平和我们的生活方式是一个明确而现实的威胁。 他们已经证明,他们正在积极扩大其国内外军事和经济上的边界。 如果这一切没有很快被制止,我们会发现自己只能任由他们的摆布了。 当务之急是立刻采取行动宜早不宜迟。

中国尚未被核武器轰炸过,但为了保证我们的民主和自由文化的生存,这样做是非常重要的,我们需要当机立断。

一个现代化的中国只会比纳粹德国更坏。



pablo668
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
In before the lock....Wow....just wow.
         
在本帖被锁定前....留个爪印....只是留个爪印。



Jake10
From: USA
Hey Bystander, they really got to you over there, huh?

嘿Bystander,他们真的去找你喝茶了,是吧?



Bystander
Please propose specific criticisms to the above proposal, instead of expressing general incredulity.
If you disagree, state why.
                  
请对上面的建议提出具体的意见,而不是表达一般性的批评。

如果您不同意,请说明原因。



pablo668
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.

Really? I have to state why dropping nuclear weapons on anyone at any time in history or the present is a bad idea?
As preferable to the current status quo even?
I'm incredulous because I can't believe you are serious.
         
真的吗? 我必须说明为什么在历史上或现在的任何时候向任何人投放核弹是一个坏主意?

即使倾向于选择目前现状?

我很怀疑,因为我不敢相信你是认真的。



Naomasa298
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
I think we should because I like big boom-booms.
Seriously - we need to preserve our democratic and free culture by bombing other people back to the Stone Age and murdering - yes, murdering - millions of people?

我认为我们应该因为我喜欢大爆炸。

我是认真的 - 我们需要通过把别人炸回石器时代以维护我们的民主和自由的文化 – 没错,得杀掉数以百万计的人。



--------------- 以下译者: yayayaya ---------------
更多国外译帖欢迎访问:看世界口碑网  http://www.kanshij.com/community/country/

Big Stick
From: Land of 10,000 lakes
No we shouldn't have nuked the Chinese. Who would be around to lend us money to invade Iraq? There is and old adage that is apropo for this question. "live by the sword, die by the sword." If we dropped Nukes on everyone that we went to war with, that would have been about 10 countries since the end of WW2. Sooner or later someone was going to drop one on us. What a nightmare world that would be.
         
不,我们不应该核爆中国。 否则谁会借钱给我们入侵伊拉克? 有句古老的格言,“生源于自己手握刀剑,死源自他人手握刀剑。”如果我们每次打仗都往别人头上扔核弹,那自二战结束以来我们起码向10个国家扔了核弹,迟早有一天别人也会扔给我们,这将会是个多么噩梦的世界。



RusEvo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bystander
The use of nuclear weapons against China was justified when initially proposed, and is still justified today. There is nothing redeemable about Chinese culture or Chinese people. They represent a clear and present threat to world peace and democracy.
Yoikes, I would hate to have your understanding of the world..... I like Chinese people a lot.

Quote:
he Republic of China is a multi-party democracy that has a presidential system and universal suffrage. Yet its sovereignty is not recognized by supposedly pro-democratic nations, due to the fact that the PRC refuses to have diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes the ROC, and requires all nations with which it has diplomatic relations to make a statement recognizing its claims to Taiwan. As a result, there are only 23 states that have official diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.
It is unfortunate that a democratic country has to be ignored officially, but this has not stopped economic and other government links.

Quote:
(Deleted. ).

Is genocide the right word? Colonization maybe. Its not good at any rate, even if the central government is building infrastructure etc, the people seem not to want it.

Quote:
The flood of cheap goods into the Western markets serves to undermine the local economy, ensuring that -unless things change- we will soon be forced to adopt similar working conditions in order to remain competitive.
There are benefits to having cheaper consumer goods.

Quote:
Communist China is a clear and present threat to world peace and our way of life. They have demonstrated that they are aggressively expanding their borders both militarily and economically, domestically and abroad. If not stopped soon we will find ourselves at their mercy. It is imperative to act sooner rather than later.
Is it? They tend to stay inside their current borders, unlike some other countries I can think of.

Quote:
China has not yet been bombarded by nuclear weapons, but in order to ensure our survival as democratic and free culture, it is imperative that we do so decisively and immediately.
Modern China is worse than Nazi Germany.
Uh, no it is not. It has issues, these do not include a holocaust or the invasion of many other lands.
         
引用:
作者:Bystander
“对中国使用核武器在最初提出的时候就是合理的,直到今天仍然是合理的。 没有任何中国文化和中国人值得拯救。 他们是世界和平与民主的一个明确而现实的威胁。”

额滴神,你对世界的理解真让我恶心..... 我超喜欢中国人。

引用: “中华民国是一个有总统制和普选的多党民主体制,然而其主权不被其他民主国家承认,原因在于中华人民共和国拒绝与任何承认中华民国的国家建立外交关系,并要求所有与它有外交关系的国家作出声明,承认台湾是属于它的。 其结果是,只有23个国家与中华民国有正式的外交关系。”

不幸的是,一个民主的国家在官方层面必须被忽略,但这并没有阻止经济和其他的政府间联系。

引用: “(译注:此处为对X.Z的胡说八道部分)”

种族灭绝是正确的字眼? 或许你应该用殖民化。 不过不管怎样都是不对的,即使中央政府正在那建设基础设施,但那里的人似乎并不想要这些。

引用: “廉价商品涌入西方市场的作用是破坏了当地经济,我可以保证,除非事情有所改变,否则我们很快也会被迫采用类似的工作条件,以保持竞争力。”

这也有带来更多更便宜的消费品的好处。

引用: “中国共CD对世界和平和我们的生活方式是一个明确而现实的威胁。 他们已经证明,他们正在积极扩大其国内外军事和经济上的边界。 如果这一切没有很快被制止,我们会发现自己只能任由他们的摆布了。 当务之急是立刻采取行动宜早不宜迟。”

是吗? 他们倾向于把这些限制在自己的国境内,不像其他一些我能想到的国家。

引用: “中国尚未被核武器轰炸过,但为了保证我们的民主和自由文化的生存,这样做是非常重要的,我们需要当机立断。
一个现代化的中国只会比纳粹德国更坏。”

呃,不,它不是。它有问题,但并没有进行大屠杀和侵略其他许多土地。



DavidM
From: P-city, NL

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo668
Really? I have to state why dropping nuclear weapons on anyone at any time in history or the present is a bad idea?

Could not agree more......isnt it a bit like "should we have napalmed the bosnian serbs in order to protect the bosniaks?"
         

引用:
作者:pablo668
“真的吗? 我必须说明为什么在历史上或现在的任何时候向任何人投放核弹是一个坏主意? ”

完全同意......是不是有点像“我们应该为了保护波斯尼亚人而向波斯尼亚塞族人投凝固汽油弹?”



sturm
миротворец
From: Bulgaria
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
I have nothing but deep, undying love for the people of China. I despise the Chinese government, their policies and their treatment of the Chinese people these past 62 years. No one and I do mean no one can ever accuse me of harboring any ill feelings for the normal people of this great country.
However, if there was a full scale war against china in 1950's (as you suggested), then exactly the same chinese people would have suffered.
         
引用:
作者:Wenge
“没有,我对中国人民只有深厚,永恒的爱。我鄙视中国政府,还有他们62年来的政策以及对待中国人民的做法。没有人,我的意思是没有任何人可以指责我对这个伟大国家的普通民众怀有不好的感觉。”

但是,如果我们在1950年与中国爆发大规模全面战争(如你所说),那么这些同样的中国人就会受到影响。



purakjelia
So the Westerners could drop nuclear bombs, kill Native Americans, and colonize other lands, but you don't allow we Han Chinese to have some simple admiration for our ethnicity?
Yes, I know that the CCP is evil, and that's probably the reason why most of you dislike Chinese. I think you should realize that the CCP cannot represent the Chinese people, and there are many Chinese who dislike CCP as well. Chinese civilians are also the victims of CCP.
And seriously, supporting genocides and supporting the use of nuclear weapons would make you look more evil than CCP.

所以,西方人可能扔核弹,可以杀死印第安人,可以殖民其他国家,但你却不允许让我们中国汉族有一些简单的民族自豪感?是的,我知道共C.D是邪恶的,这也许是你们不喜欢中国人的主要原因。我想你应该明白,中G不能代表中国人民,而且还有很多不喜欢中G的中国人。中国平民也是中G的受害者。

必须很认真的说,支持使用核武器来进行种族灭绝使你看起来比中G更邪恶。



purakjelia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
I have nothing but deep, undying love for the people of China. I despise the Chinese government, their policies and their treatment of the Chinese people these past 62 years. No one and I do mean no one can ever accuse me of harboring any ill feelings for the normal people of this great country.
Wenge, you are the only one here who seems to have a fair opinion about China and Chinese people.
         
引用:
作者:Wenge
“没有,我对中国人民只有深厚,永恒的爱。我鄙视中国政府,还有他们62年来的政策以及对待中国人民的做法。没有人,我的意思是没有任何人可以指责我对这个伟大国家的普通民众怀有不好的感觉。”

Wenge,你似乎是这里唯一一个对中国和中国人有一个公正意见的人。



dschardt
From: Nebraska
Should the US have used nukes? No we should not have, and in hindsight, it is a good thing we did not use them.

美国是否应该使用核武器?不,我们不应该,事后也证明,幸亏我们没用。



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Bystander writes
Quote:
The use of nuclear weapons against China was justified when initially proposed, and is still justified today. There is nothing redeemable about Chinese culture or Chinese people. They represent a clear and present threat to world peace and democracy.
Firstly let me reiterate: The bombing of China would have been futile and probably elicited a response from the Soviets on Japan and South Korea. Truman signed nuke orders, but after representation from NATO countries rescinded them.

As for Bystander's deranged rant: that not only should the US have nuked China in the 1950s, that they should nuke them now for genocide is the most ludicrous thing I have heard. The most we can say about Chinese aggression is that it has traditionally pushed back from its border any and all threats. It has not mounted an invasion of other countries except to dissolve build-ups and create buffer zones. Turkic build-up in central Asia is a case in point. Here the Han Chinese competed with the Tibetan empire for control and pacification of central Asia. Like Central Asia, Tibet also has been traditionally part of the Han Empire at various times, although it seems that they have botched the assimilation job since their most recent invasion and now face some (at least) religious resistance there. Modern China still controls large parts of central Asia and the Turkic peoples of Xinjiang are another case in point. Here predominantly Muslim-Turkic peoples feel strongly about the Han Chinese taking resources and making money from their traditional lands. However there is no genocide, nor are there widespread pogroms, instead there is revenge killings for random rioting murders that we could also expect from many other nations in this situation. Here we are probably not talking in the thousands, so therefore I assert that while there is repression, there is not an organized or systematic program of total elimination.

引用:
“对中国使用核武器在最初提出的时候就是合理的,直到今天仍然是合理的。 没有任何中国文化和中国人值得拯救。 他们是世界和平与民主的一个明确而现实的威胁。”

首先让我重申:对中国的轰炸只能是徒劳的,还可能引发苏联对日本和韩国的回击。杜鲁门签署了核攻击的命令,但与北约国家的代表会谈后,撤销了该命令。

至于Bystander的疯狂叫嚣:不仅要美国在50年代就核爆中国,还要求现在就用核武器来对他们进行种族灭绝式的轰炸是我听过的最可笑的事情。我们可以对中国侵略说得最多的是,它的所有威胁就是历来总被推回到自己的边境线内。它从来没有入侵过其它国家,除了破坏房屋来创建一些缓冲区。突厥人在中亚地区的聚居地就是一个很好的例子。在这里,中国汉族人与西藏帝国竞争对中亚的控制和安定。

同中亚一样,西藏也一直是传统的汉帝国在不同时期的一部分,尽管它最近又因为他们的入侵和拙劣的同化工作,现在那里出现(至少)一些宗教反抗。现代中国仍然控制着中亚的大部分地区,新疆的突厥人就是其中一个例子。在这里,占人口大部分的穆斯林突厥人强烈地感觉到中国汉族在开采他们的资源,并从他们的传统土地上赚钱。但是没有进行种族灭绝,也没有广泛的屠杀,而只是对那些在骚乱中随意进行谋杀的人进行报复性处决,这也是我们许多其他国家在这种情况下会采取的做法。在这里,我可不是说这样的情况有数以千计,所以我认为,虽然有压制,但那里没有有组织的或系统性的彻底灭绝计划。



Ceasar
From: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel... and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China... and take it apart brick by brick... and nuke them back into the ****in' stone age forever?

Because then the US would have lost any sort of control on the situation, it would probably have escalated into a nuclear war resulting in NO free people living in the world today. Maybe cockroaches.

The cold war wasn't even a war. It was a bunch of people with different political ideologies looking to stab the other in the back, until Russia finally had some leaders who decided not to be dictators and disband the soviet union          . The cold war ended because people in Russia lost faith in communism and socialism, not because America 'won'. If anything, an attack on China would have resulted in a wave of anti-west sentiments in Russia and massively prolonged the cold war.

Also, I'm not sure why you believe that the majority of those 2 million people are being oppressed. Nobody in Russia really saw Stalin as a dictator. They acknowledged the fact that he had absolute power over them, but they generally agreed his rule (regarded as an evil dictatorship of death!!11! in America) was overall beneficial. Unless you were deliberately trying to overthrow the government, you had nothing to fear and Western media horrendously over-exaggerated the so-called oppression in the Soviet union          - people in the Soviet union           generally liked Stalin.

Just saying, maybe those 2 million people don't want to be free. Just look at where Iraq told us to shove the 'freedom' we gave them. People don't generally gain their freedom by being nuked into the stone age.

The cold war was a pointless conflict and escalation against China would have been even more pointless than WW1.

引用:
作者:Wenge
“为什么我们不越过三八线...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中国长城以内?... 并把它一砖一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一劳永逸地把他们炸回“石器时代”?”

因为那样的话,美国将会失去对局势的任何形式的控制,它很可能会升级为导致没有人能活到今天的全面核战争,只剩下蟑螂。冷战甚至不是一场战争,那是一堆人用不同的政治意识形态在给对方找茬,直到俄罗斯终于有了一些领导人决定不成为独裁者并解散苏联。冷战结束是因为在俄罗斯的人们失去了对共产主义和社会主义的信仰,而不是因为美国的“获胜”。想象一下,对中国的攻击会在俄罗斯引起一波反西方情绪并极大程度地长时间延续冷战。

另外,我不知道为什么你相信200万人中大部分都在被压迫。在俄罗斯没有人把斯大林看成是一个独裁者。人们承认他有极大的权力,但他们普遍认为他的统治(美国人把他的统治视为死亡的邪恶独裁!可笑!)对整体是有利的。除非你故意想去推翻政府,否则你一点都不需要害怕,西方媒体过分夸大了在苏联的所谓压迫,其实一般的苏联人都喜欢斯大林。

我只是想说,也许那里的200万人根本不想要自由。看看伊拉克的现状,在那里我们给他们强推了“自由”。被核爆回石器时代的人们一般都不会得到他们的自由。

冷战是一场毫无意义的冲突,提升对中国的攻击程度甚至比第一次世界大战更没意义。



pablo668
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purakjelia
So the Westerners could drop nuclear bombs, kill Native Americans, and colonize other lands, but you don't allow we Han Chinese to have some simple admiration for our ethnicity?

You have the wrong end of the stick old boy. If you read back through the whole thread you'll probably find the majority of posters here are NOT in favour of using nuclear weapons on the chinese then or now.
A lot of people on this forum may not agree with much the govt of china does or it's policies foreign or otherwise, but I seriously doubt any of them actually dislike the chinese themselves.
I have have more than a few friends of chinese extraction of one type or another and I love them all.
         

引用:
最初发布者purakjelia
“所以,西方人可能扔核弹,可以杀死印第安人,可以殖民其他国家,但你却不允许让我们中国汉族有一些简单的民族自豪感?”

大哥你完全错了。如果你读回整个帖子你可能会发现这里大多数人并不主张在当时或是现在对中国使用核武器,在这个论坛很多人也许不赞同中国政府的一些做法或者它的对外政策,但我真的不认为他们中有人会不喜欢中国人。

我有很多不同类型的中国朋友,而我爱他们所有人。



Belloc
From: USA
Simple answer - no. Great way to start WWIII if we did.
         
简单的答案-不应该。如果我们做了,那就是第三次世界大战的闪亮登场。



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen

Quote:
Originally Posted by purakjelia
So the Westerners could drop nuclear bombs, kill Native Americans, and colonize other lands, but you don't allow we Han Chinese to have some simple admiration for our ethnicity? Yes, I know that the CCP is evil, and that's probably the reason why most of you dislike Chinese. I think you should realize that the CCP cannot represent the Chinese people, and there are many Chinese who dislike CCP as well. Chinese civilians are also the victims of CCP.And seriously, supporting genocides and supporting the use of nuclear weapons would make you look more evil than CCP.

Don't take trolls too seriously purakjelia, many have nothing in their lives, relationships, or emotions and thus we see these kind of posts designed to elicit some response from posters. Blaming nations for seeking their national interest at the expence of other nations shows an elementary understanding of geopolitical reality. Nuking anyone is inhuman, even threatening states like North Korea or Iran. The art in global relations is to look past the differences and focus on parallel interests that serve both nations.
         
引用:
最初发布者purakjelia
“所以,西方人可能扔核弹,可以杀死印第安人,可以殖民其他国家,但你却不允许让我们中国汉族有一些简单的民族自豪感?是的,我知道共C.D是邪恶的,这也许是你们不喜欢中国人的主要原因。我想你应该明白,中G不能代表中国人民,而且还有很多不喜欢中G的中国人。中国平民也是中G的受害者。必须很认真的说,支持使用核武器来进行种族灭绝使你看起来比中G更邪恶。”

不要太认真了purakjelia,很多人的生活,关系或情感很空虚因此我们看到了这类帖子,旨在引起人们的一些回应而已。通过指责他国来寻求自己国家在他国身上获取利益显示了人们对地缘政治的一个基本了解。轰炸任何人都是不人道的,哪怕是对某种威胁例如朝鲜或伊朗。国际关系中的艺术是抛弃差异,专注于两个国家的共同利益。



bil73
no the damage to the enviroment would have been catastrophic
         
不应该。那样做对环境的损害将是灾难性的



sylla1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
Nuking them wasn't the answer, but there should have been an all out war that involved the world then. Perhaps if we had stopped the Red Chinese and the soviets the cold war would have been shorter and there would be almost 2 billion more free people in the world today. Maybe not! Who knows?

Two billion more free people in the world today would still be huge competitors among the superpowers, either militarily or economically.
Not too big a difference from the standpoint of any hegemony.

On the other hand, your purely military argument makes perfect sense; if you are going to destroy a nation, it is better to do it when they have not any chance to retaliate. For better or for worse, for this case such chance always existed, even if just by proxy.
         
引用:
作者:Wenge
“核轰炸他们不是个办法,那样必然会引发全世界的全面战争。不过或许这能令我们提早结束与苏联和红色中国的冷战,今天就会有将近20亿更自由的人在世界上生活。但也可能相反!谁知道呢?”

在当今世界,两个有着十亿更自由人民的超级大国仍然是一对巨大的竞争对手,无论是军事还是经济上。

从世界霸权的角度来看,这没有太大的区别。在另一方面,你的纯军事的说法是非常合情合理的。如果要摧毁一个国家,最好是在他们没有任何机会反击的时候。不管好坏,这种可能性始终是存在的,即使只是代理人战争。



RusEvo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceasar
The cold war wasn't even a war.
It was many wars...... Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan........ and others.
         
引用:
作者:Ceasar
“冷战甚至不是一场战争。”

这是许多战争...... 韩国,越南,阿富汗........还有其他。



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Yes, the cold war saw to it that the world enjoyed not a minute's peace.
         
是的,透过冷战我们可以看到,这个世界并不享受哪怕一分钟的和平。



SirOrmondeWinter

It's certainly a tempting prospect. According to Max Hasting's excellent book on the Korean War one of the factors in the eventual armstice was the US's development of nuclear cannon which could be used at a tactical level.
My answer would be if they UN forces had faced defeat then certainly their use would have been justified. And if the enemy had not been prepared to come to terms in 1953 then maybe then too.
You should so a poll

这当然是一个诱人的前景。根据马克斯-黑廷斯写的关于朝鲜战争的书,最终休战的其中一个因素是美军能在战术层面使用的核大炮的发展。我的答案是,如果联合国部队面临惨败的话,核武器的使用肯定就会合理。如果敌人在1953年没有做好接受谈判的准备,那么,也许,你懂的。
不过应该进行投票表决。



sylla1
People, you must be kidding. To the Nth degree, I might add.

Which point exactly of the seemingly elementary Mutual Assured Destruction would be in dispute here?
         
楼上的,你一定是在开玩笑。我想说,这玩笑开大了。

哪一点让你觉得这基本上就是一次相互毁灭的结论需要在这里再争议一下?



SirOrmondeWinter
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1
Which point exactly of the seemingly elementary Mutual Assured Destruction would be in dispute here?

Because China didn't have the bomb yet, the Soviet arsenal was small and had practically no means of delivery and that Stalin wasn't going to risk annihilation for the sake of Korea
         
引用: sylla1 “哪一点让你觉得这基本上就是一次相互毁灭的结论需要在这里再争议一下? ”

因为中国当时没有原子弹,而苏联的核武库太小,且几乎没有运载工具,还有斯大林是不会为朝鲜去冒毁灭性的风险 。



sylla1
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter
Because China didn't have the bomb yet, the Soviet arsenal was small and had practically no means of delivery and that Stalin wasn't going to risk annihilation for the sake of Korea

Mr Truman clearly thought otherwise; the Soviets would have inevitably considered any use of the nukes against any ally as an obvious direct menace.
Not to mention the obvious side effects over the local US allies.
Far as I can tell that nice tautology is self-evident; I must entirely agree with Mr Truman.
As MAD goes, one nuke are already too many nukes.
Especially if you are not sure how many nukes are actually on the other side.
That was especially evident for the people who had attested Hiroshima & Nagasaki.


引用:
作者:SirOrmondeWinter
“因为中国当时没有原子弹,而苏联的核武库太小,且几乎没有运载工具,还有斯大林是不会为朝鲜去冒毁灭性的风险 。”

杜鲁门先生显然不是这样想,苏联不可避免地会考虑对任何受到如此明显的直接威胁的盟友使用核武器。更不用说是在美国盟友的土地上使用。

我可以告诉大家,漂亮的循环逻辑是不言而喻的,我必须完全同意杜鲁门先生。夸张一点说,有一颗核弹就等于有许多核弹。特别是当你不知道对方有多少核弹的时候。这个理论在广岛和长崎的人们身上得到充分的证实。



--------------- 以下译者: 东渐 ---------------
更多国外译帖欢迎访问:看世界口碑网  http://www.kanshij.com/community/country/


rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Quote:
It's certainly a tempting prospect. According to Max Hasting's excellent book on the Korean War one of the factors in the eventual armstice was the US's development of nuclear cannon which could be used at a tactical level.My answer would be if they UN forces had faced defeat then certainly their use would have been justified. And if the enemy had not been prepared to come to terms in 1953 then maybe then too.

Nuclear cannon! Because the Soviets didn't have a developed delivery system? Sure the Soviets couldn't have flown a bomber over Seoul or Tokyo and bombed MacArthur nearer to his god... sooner or later? By the late 50s they had better rocketry than anyone.

It was the NATO countries that convinced Truman that attacking China was folly, because they feared the US would be dragged into a long running war with China and have no reserves for NATO in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe. China would have been a futile, costly sideshow to the real performance in the West.

引用:
“这当然是一个诱人的前景。根据马克斯-黑廷斯写的关于朝鲜战争的书,最终休战的其中一个因素是美军能在战术层面使用的核大炮的发展。我的答案是,如果联合国部队面临惨败的话,核武器的使用肯定就会合理。如果敌人在1953年没有做好接受谈判的准备,那么,也许,你懂的。”

核大炮!因为苏联没有发展出投送系统?当然,苏联不可能出动轰炸机到首尔或者东京,把麦克阿瑟炸到上帝那... 不过这也是迟早的事?50年代末他们拥有比任何人都要好的火箭。

是北约国家说服杜鲁门,攻击中国是愚蠢的行为,因为他们担心美国会被拖入一个与中国长期的战争中,以致没有储备给北约来应对苏联对欧洲的入侵。对西方来说,与中国战争是无益和昂贵的。



SirOrmondeWinter

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono
Nuclear cannon! Because the Soviets didn't have a developed delivery system? Sure the Soviets couldn't have flown a bomber over Seoul or Tokyo and bombed MacArthur nearer to his god... sooner or later? By the late 50s they had better rocketry than anyone.

It doesn't matter what the Soviets had by the late 1950s as the Korean War ends in 1953. Also the UN forces had overwhelming air superiority so it's doubtful that they could have delivered their A-bomb and it's almost certain they wouldn't have, backing down as they did in Cuba.
The US in May 1953 test fired the 'Honest John' nuclear cannon capable of blasting a path through the enemy defences in a tactical rather than strategic manner, allowing the UN forces to fight their way into North Korea with minimal losses
         
引用:
作者:rehabnonono
“核大炮!因为苏联没有发展出投送系统?当然,苏联不可能出动轰炸机到首尔或者东京,把麦克阿瑟炸到上帝那... 不过这也是迟早的事?50年代末他们拥有比任何人都要好的火箭。”

不要紧,苏联人50年代末才有而韩战1953年就结束了。此外,联合国军有压倒性的空中优势,因此他们能否空投原子弹是值得怀疑的,而且几乎可以肯定他们不会这样做,看回他们当年在古巴的退让就知道了。美国1953年5月试射了名为“诚实的约翰”的原子炮,能够通过战术而非战略的方式在敌人的防线上炸开一条大路,使联合国部队可以以最小的损失找到进入朝鲜的方式。



botully
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono
Nuke orders were signed by Truman but they were deemed pretty useless against massed ground forces. They may have worked on the supply bases in China... however, that would have initiated attacks on Japan by Soviet bombers.
This is an excellent point often missed by those who think MacArthur was right. The Chinese had bases that were off-limits to UN attack....and so the UN had bases in Japan that were likewise unmolested.
         
引用:
作者:rehabnonono
“核攻击命令是由杜鲁门签署的,但它被视为对付地面集结部队好看不中用。 它也许对中国的供应基地能起作用... 然而,这会引发苏联轰炸机开始对日本进行攻击。”

这是被那些认为麦克阿瑟是正确的人往往错过一点。中国人有没受到联合国军攻击的基地....同时,联合国军在日本的基地也同样没受到干扰。



emperor of seleucid
From: Arche Seleukeia
Sure, it kill millions of people, but it won't make any strategic gains. Military units are never centralized to make nuclear weapons effective against the military. The Soviet union           will also retaliate with their own nukes. America, being the country that always opposes government war, will cry to death when Chinese view it as a common tragedy after they witness nearly fifty years of continuous warfare.
         
当然,(核爆中国)这会杀死数百万的人,但它不会产生任何战略利益。军队从来就不会集中起来让敌军用核武器来轰炸。苏联也会用自己的核武器来报复。美国,作为一个始终反对政府间战争的国家,一旦被见证了近五十多年没完没了战争的中国当成是这场悲剧的垫背,那时他们会哭到死。



SirOrmondeWinter
Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid
Military units are never centralized to make nuclear weapons effective against the military. The Soviet union           will also retaliate with their own nukes.

No, the Chinese had used the ceasefires to build a massive chain of bunkers to defeat any UN move to launch an assault on them. The Honest John would have blasted it's way through them allowing the advance. I doubt very much Stalin and Krushcev would have risked nuclear war over a few thousand Chinese and a limited (15 kiloton) area of devestation
         
引用:
“军队从来就不会集中起来让敌军用核武器来轰炸。苏联也会用自己的核武器来报复。”

不不,中国人在停火期间构筑了大型连贯式的掩体,以打退联合国军对他们的任何攻击。“诚实的约翰”(核大炮)是用来炸开一条前进的道路。我很怀疑斯大林和赫鲁晓夫会为几千名中国人和有限地区(15平方公里)的毁灭而去冒核战的风险。



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Quote:
Also the UN forces had overwhelming air superiority so it's doubtful that they could have delivered their A-bomb and it's almost certain they wouldn't have, backing down as they did in Cuba.

Completely sure that the Soviets couldn't or wouldn't retaliate? Bet your life on it? Using the backdown during the Cuban Missile Crisis isn't a valid argument. That was in the US sphere of influence, the Korean war was close to the Soviet's border and thus much more in their national interest. Just crazy to throw these ideas out there anyway.

We have to eradicate all nuclear weapons before they....
         
引用:
“联合国军有压倒性的空中优势,因此他们能否空投原子弹是值得怀疑的,而且几乎可以肯定他们不会这样做,看回他们当年在古巴的退让就知道了。”

完全确信苏联不会报复? 你敢用你的生命打赌吗?古巴导弹危机期间的让步不是一个有效的参照,那是在美国的势力范围内。朝鲜战争是靠近苏联的边界,对于他们有重大的国家利益。你的那些想法简直疯了,赶紧扔掉~

我们必须消除所有核武器,在它们被....



Umpire
Academician
I am confident that the Chinese would not allow North Korea to start a major war.

我相信,中国不会允许朝鲜发动一场大战。



SirOrmondeWinter
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono
Completely sure that the Soviets couldn't or wouldn't retaliate? Bet your life on it?

But the balance of power was the same, the US clearly superior in every way. Also Korea borders China so it's a long way from the USSR
         
引用:
作者:rehabnonono
“完全确信苏联不会报复? 你敢用你的生命打赌吗?”

但是力量的平衡是一样的,美国明显在各方面都有优势。另外朝鲜与中国接壤,它到苏联还有很长的一段路。



pnoozi
From: New York
I don't know if we should have used nuclear weapons in the Korean War, but it breaks my heart that we didn't liberate the entire peninsula. Unfortunately there was nothing we could do about the PRC without starting World War III.
         
我不知道我们是否应该在朝鲜战场上使用核武器,但我很伤心我们没有解放整个半岛。不幸的是, 除了发动第三次世界大战,我们对中国完全没辙。



pablo668
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.

Just had a bit of a look at NUclear artillery as it was back then, I'm pretty sure it's what MacArthur wanted to use.
The yields from the shells weren't that big, roughly 100-150tons of tnt. Still pretty impressive for a device around the same size as an artillery shell.
Not sure how effective they would have been against a dug in enemy either.

I think the point being missed by many though is fallout/contamination. Both Superpowers and other nuclear powers held atmosperic tests (albeit with much larger yield weapons) whilst having servicemen either standing in rows observing or going into the immediate area very soon after the blast and conducting exercises.
The end result was that large numbers of these servicemen died. I'm not sure on the timing of this though ie: how long it took, some servicemen got cancer years later.

Depending on yields and how many of theses things were fired, you could end up with quite a bit of fallout/contamination.
This would also depend on the height of any cloud from the explosion. Close to this area there is a high level jet stream flowing west to east and if not that every year there is a prevailing wind that blows dust from a desert in China/Mongolia into Japan, for about a month I think.
So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there's be a reasonably good chance of widespread contamination as a result of using these weapons.

This is before even considering what the response of China/USSR may have been.

只是瞄过一眼核大炮,我敢肯定麦克阿瑟一定会想使用。炮弹的当量并不算很大,约100-150吨TNT炸药。但与其他同样大小的装置比,仍然是相当令人印象深刻的。但不知道对敌人的坑道效果如何。我觉得被很多人忽略掉的一点是核尘埃/污染。两个超级大国,还有其他拥有核的国家进行核试验的时候,都有军人或是站着观察或是在爆炸后不久就进入试验区。最终的结果是,这些军人后来大量的死掉了。我不确定大概是多长时间,很多年后,一些军人得了癌症。

与使用了多少这些弹药相联系,你最终会得到相当多核尘埃/污染。这还将取决于爆炸云的高度,此区域有自西向东的高空急流,即便没有,每年的季风也会把大量灰尘从中国/蒙古沙漠吹到日本,我认为,这只需一个月时间。所以,使用这些武器还有一个结果就是很有可能会对该地区造成大面积污染。

这甚至比考虑什么中苏反应更重要。



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter
But the balance of power was the same, the US clearly superior in every way. Also Korea borders China so it's a long way from the USSR
Actually, Russia shares borders with both North Korea and China. Their border with North Korea is about 10 miles long and runs along the Tumen River.
         
引用:
作者:SirOrmondeWinter
“但是力量的平衡是一样的,美国明显在各方面都有优势。另外朝鲜与中国接壤,它到苏联还有很长的一段路。”

事实上,俄罗斯既和中国,也和朝鲜接壤。他们与朝鲜边境沿图们江望上约有10公里长。



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnoozi
I don't know if we should have used nuclear weapons in the Korean War, but it breaks my heart that we didn't liberate the entire peninsula. Unfortunately there was nothing we could do about the PRC without starting World War III.
Agreed!

引用:
作者:pnoozi
“我不知道我们是否应该在朝鲜战场上使用核武器,但我很伤心我们没有解放整个半岛。不幸的是, 除了发动第三次世界大战,我们对中国完全没辙。”

同意!



histobuffkg70
From: Southwest U.S.
I remember reading that, at one point, Truman authorized bombing one of the bridges which connected North Korea and China. However, he ordered that the bombs only target the part of the bridge which was closest to North Korea. The problem was that the bombs of that era were inaccurate in the best of conditions, and the winds in that area are so intense that, even today, hitting them wouldn't be an easy task.
         
我记得当时读到,杜鲁门授权轰炸连接朝鲜和中国的一座桥梁。不过,他下令炸弹只针对接近朝鲜的一部分桥。问题是,那个时代的炸弹在最好的条件下还是不准确的,并且该地区的风相当大,即使在今天,击中他们也不会是一件容易的事。



Umpire
Carpet bombing with normal bombs would surely have been sufficient to get the job done.
         
用普通炸弹进行地毯式轰炸足以完成这项工作。



Ancientgeezer
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Some pertinent information on Truman's nuclear decisions.

关于杜鲁门的核决策的一些相关信息:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB159/usukconsult-1.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB159/usukconsult-4a.pdf



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
SirOrmand wrote
But the balance of power was the same, the US clearly superior in every way. Also Korea borders China so it's a long way from the USSR
Every way? You mean in bombs right? Well it would have only taken one on Tokyo to fry Mrs. MacArthur's washing. It's a moot point writing like this anyway, nobody wins in nuclear exchanges

Back to the USSR?
You're sure about that? North Korea's a long way from the Soviet/Russia border? Because last time I was in Manchuria I could have sworn that the river between China and Russia is also the border between North Korea and Russia. In fact... I am sure it is. May have moved up and down the river a few clicks but it's there alright.
You must mean a long way from Moscow right?

Well, Hawaii was further way from Washington.
   
SirOrmand写到:“但是力量的平衡是一样的,美国明显在各方面都有优势。另外朝鲜与中国接壤,它到苏联还有很长的一段路。”

很长的路?你指投弹的路是吧?那玩意只需要有一个就能把在东京的麦克阿瑟夫人的洗衣机炸上天。争论这个是没有意义的,反正在核互炸中不会有赢家。

回苏联的路?你确定吗?朝鲜到苏联/俄罗斯边境有很长的路要走?哥上次就去过满洲,我可以发誓,中国和俄罗斯之间的河流也是朝鲜和俄罗斯的边界。事实上...我确定它是。也许沿着河流往上或往下一点,但它就在那。

你肯定是指从莫斯科出发要走很长的路对不?好吧,从华盛顿出发到夏威夷也够远的。



NonXNonExX

The bridge over the Yalu at Dandong in China was successfully bombed during the conflict. BTW, in China the Korean War (officially known in China as the "War to Fight American Agression and Aid Korea") is claimed as a great victory for China over a stronger enemy. The fact that N Korea crossed the 38th parallel first is never mentioned.

The Chinese are in a real quandry over their ally N Korea. They have many issues with N Korea, and the gap between their 2 different versions of socialism is growing. The only reasons they don't tell them "qu ni de" is because they fear US influence so close to their borders and they fear the giant influx of refugees that would hit their borders if the regime there were to collapse. The Chinese clearly showed that they were no longer as close as they used to be when they recognized S Korea. This obviously didn't go over well in N Korea.

The policies of the government, while not to everyone's liking, has created a growing middle class in China. As for the Chinese people, they are not so different from people in the West. They want to live a good life in a secure environment like anyone else. There are good people and bad people everywhere, China included. But I have worked with musicians from Xinjiang, and I know they really do hate the Han Chinese for a number of reasons, including the virtual takeover of the main cities in Xinjiang among other reasons.


鸭绿江上中国丹东一侧的桥梁在冲突中被成功炸毁。顺便说一句,在中国,韩战(中国称为“抗美援朝战争”)被作为对抗强大敌人的一次伟大的胜利。而北朝鲜首先越过三八线的这一事实却从未被提及。

中国人对他们的盟友朝鲜很无奈,两者之间有许多问题,两个不同版本的社会主义之间的差距也越来越大。中国人不对朝鲜人说“去你丫的”的唯一原因是他们担心美国的影响力如此接近他们的边界,他们还担心朝鲜政权崩溃后会有大量的难民越过边境。中国对韩国的承认清晰地表明,中朝之间不再像曾经那样亲密。这显然令朝鲜很不愉快。

中国政府的政策,虽然不讨所有人的喜欢,已在中国建立了一个不断壮大的中产阶级。至于中国人,他们跟西方人并没有什么不同。他们希望跟其他人一样在安全的环境下过上好的生活。

好人和坏人哪都有,中国也不例外。但我与新疆来的音乐家一起工作过,我知道他们真的讨厌中国汉族人的一些原因,其中包括无形中控制了那里的主要城市等。



Ancientgeezer

I am surprised that some people cannot see the big picture, or even listen to Truman's speech announcing that he had fired MacArthur and explaining the big picture.
The Berlin blockade had taken place in 1949 as had Tito's split with Moscow. Stalin was rearming the Warsaw Pact countries like mad with an invasion of Yugoslavia next on Stalin's list. (The West knew this).
The USSR did not have the wherewithall to hit America, but they certainly had the muscle to roll into West Germany or bomb US assets in Europe, especially Britain- which is why the US loaned the UK 70 B-29 bombers in early 1950.
The USSR had only supplied a handful of Soviet pilots secretly to serve in North Korea, an attack on China proper would almost certainly have brought a higher level and open Soviet assistance (or at least a lot more "volunteers"), thus expanding the war. US bases and the Navy vessels would have been fair-game targets.

我感到惊讶的是,有些人看不到大局,甚至在听了杜鲁门的讲话,宣布他已解雇了麦克阿瑟并对时局进行了解释。在1949年,铁托与莫斯科分裂,柏林的封锁也已经发生了。斯大林开始重新武装华约国家,南斯拉夫成为斯大林入侵名单里的下一个。(西方知道这一点)。苏联没有足够的能力打到美国,但他们绝对有能力蹂躏西德,或者轰炸美国在欧洲的资产,特别是在英国的,这就是为什么美国在1950年初要租借给英国70架B- 29轰炸机。苏联之前只是提供少数苏联飞行员秘密援助朝鲜,对中国的攻击几乎肯定会带来苏联更高层次的援助(或至少是更多的“志愿者” ),从而扩大战争。美国的基地和海军船只就会成为这一公平游戏的目标。



rehabnonono

From: the Boomtown Shenzhen

Quote:
I am surprised that some people cannot see the big picture, or even listen to Truman's speech announcing that he had fired MacArthur and explaining the big picture.

Agreed, it was actually European NATO members who convinced Truman not to get into an arm wrestle with China. They knew once committed to a Total War with China fewer resources would have been available to stop the Soviets rolling through Germany. They also feared that Europe would be used to demonstrate the Soviet's weaponry. So there were many good reasons not to bomb the Chinese.
         
引用:
“我感到惊讶的是,有些人看不到大局,甚至在听了杜鲁门的讲话,宣布他已解雇了麦克阿瑟并对时局进行了解释。”

同意,实际上是欧洲的北约成员说服了杜鲁门不要和中国人扳手腕。他们知道一旦致力于与中国的全面战争,可以用来阻止苏联侵入西德的资源就会更少。他们还担心欧洲会成为苏联的武器实验场。因此,有许多很好的理由不要轰炸中国。



botully
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Count me in as well. Widening the war would have been a grave mistake.
         
算我一个。扩大战争将是一个严重的错误。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Should we have hit em with nukes?
Personally, I think that by using nukes we would have ran the risk of a much larger war with the Soviets, we wouldn't have the moral high ground if we totally destroyed a bunch of Chinese cities. We still should have used bombing raids though, not nukes.

Although China's nuclear weapons, only 16 are published in the newspaper.however ,there were more far nukes in China,
According to conservative estimates, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in china.
In the early years, China is very backward。there is nothing ...even
Calculator.Chinese use primitive abacus and the human brain "calculation" atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb equation.
This is a very difficult.but it is Successful.
You cannot ignore the power of China at all.
you can' t Operation China .It seem that you thought as if you are a Nationalist even you say nothing.


引用:
作者:ReaganSmash
“美国应该在朝鲜战争中向中国扔原子弹吗?就我个人而言,我认为如果使用核武器,那我们就会冒与苏联发生更大规模战争的风险,如果完全摧毁掉一大批中国的城市我们就不会再有道德制高点。所以我们依然应该用普通轰炸方式而不是核武器。”

虽然报纸上说中国的核武器只有16枚,但中国远不止这么点,据保守估计,他们有数千件的核武器。早些年,中国十分落后,但这没有什么......中国的计算家们甚至使用原始的算盘和人脑来“计算”原子弹和氢弹的方程式。这是非常艰难的,然而它成功了。你完全不能忽视中国的力量,你也不可能操纵中国。即使你没说,但你似乎是一个民族主义者。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
Although China's nuclear weapons, only 16 are published in the newspaper.however ,there were more far nukes in China,
According to conservative estimates, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in china.

The topic is about the Korean War when China had no nuclear weapons. Most of the credit for China's early weapons should be given to The soviets. They supplied the basic work needed to build the weapons.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“虽然报纸上说中国的核武器只有16枚,但中国远不止这么点,据保守估计,他们有数千件的核武器。”

这个话题讲的是朝鲜战争的时候,那时中国还没有核武器。中国早期的大部分武器都是苏联给的。他们只是为武器制造提供点基础性工作。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
The topic is about the Korean War when China had no nuclear weapons. Most of the credit for China's early weapons should be given to The soviets. They supplied the basic work needed to build the weapons.

Why China give nuclear weapons to others?
This is no reason and significance what you said. Nuclear weapons are the wealth of china. It belongs to all the chinese.

引用:
作者:Wenge
“这个话题讲的是朝鲜战争的时候,那时中国还没有核武器。中国早期的大部分武器都是苏联给的。他们只是为武器制造提供点基础性工作。”

为什么中国要把核武器交给别人?
你这话完全没有理由和意义。 核武器是中国的财富。它属于所有的中国人。

(译注:这位来自lanzhou的哥们估计是把Most of the credit for China's early weapons should be given to The soviets.这句理解成中国的武器应该交给苏联了。。=.=!)



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
Why China give nuclear weapons to others?
This is no reason and significance what you said.

There is no question about whether China gives weapons to others.
The topic is about China during the Korean Conflict. You were telling us that China is strong now.

In my opinion if The U.S. had used nuclear weapons against China all of China and Korea would have been destroyed or unlivable due to the war that would have ensued between The U.S. and the Soviet union          . China was able to fight the subdued UN forces to a standstill but they would not have had any defense against the full might of The United States and combined United Nations military.

Only with help from the soviets could they have survived but that survival would have wrecked so much disaster on the 3 countries involved that who knows how they could have ever rebuilt.

As has been stated before the soviets had no power to deliver weapons to the U.S. but they did have the power to overwhelm Europe. This would have caused a world war that no nation would have come out of unscathed.


引用:
作者:fruitcat
“为什么中国要把核武器交给别人?你这话完全没有理由和意义。”

没有人说中国应该把武器交给别人。
这里是谈韩战期间关于中国的话题。然后你跟我们说,中国现在强大了。

在我看来,如果美国使用核武器对付中国,那中国和韩国都将在接踵而至的美苏之间的战争中被摧毁或者说不再适宜居住。中国能够将联合国军打瘫,但他们不可能顶得住美国以及联合国军倾尽全力的打击。只有在苏联的帮助下他们才有可能幸存,但这受如此破坏的3个国家中幸存也是悲惨的,天知道他们要如何重建家园。

正如上面已经指出的苏联人无法把武器投送到美国,但他们对欧洲却有压倒性力量。这将导致一场世界大战,没有国家会幸免。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
Nuclear weapons are the wealth of china. It belongs to all the chinese.

Nuclear weapons are not the wealth of China and the weapons do not belong to the people. Just as in every country they belong to the government and the people have no control over them.
The wealth of China is its people. It is just a shame that the government doesn't realize this.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“核武器是中国的财富。它属于所有的中国人。”

核武器可不是中国的财富,而且武器也不属于人民。在每一个国家它都属于政府,人民对它是没有控制权的。中国的财富是她的人民,很遗憾政府并没有意识到这一点。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
This would have caused a world war that no nation would have come out of unscathed.

still remember that Mao Zedong text:
Do not provoke others, Do not my own offensive, no war.
you could have a thought of it.

引用:
作者:文革
“这将导致一场世界大战,没有国家会幸免。”

还记得毛泽东的话:“不招惹别人,不… (译注:这句啥意思?),就不会有战争。”
你可以思考一下这句话。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
The wealth of China is its people. It is just a shame that the government doesn't realize this.

please Carefully study the sunzi art of war(
The world's first strategy book)
. I believe you can understand it,

引用:
作者:文革
“中国的财富是她的人民,很遗憾政府并没有意识到这一点。”

请仔细研究《孙子兵法》(世界上第一本军事策略著作),我相信你能理解它。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
please Carefully study the sunzi art of war(The world's first strategy book)

I have carefully studied it and I stand by what I said. The power to destroy others is not wealth to a nation. If anything they are a detriment to the nation. I restate that China's wealth lies solely in its people.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“请仔细研究《孙子兵法》(世界上第一本军事策略著作)”

我已经仔细研究过它。我坚持我的看法,毁灭敌人的能力不是一个国家的财富,而是损害。我重申,中国的财富仅仅是它的人民。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Why China wants to destroy others? Please give me a reason. Please.
I'm afraid you have no reason.You are lying.wenge.
The Chinese people are willing. This has nothing to do with the government. Even in the absence of government, the Chinese people will also have nuclear weapons.

为什么中国要去毁灭别人?请给我一个理由。
我恐怕你说不出什么理由,Wenge. 有也是虚假的。

这是中国人民的意愿,跟政府无关。即使没有政府,中国人民也将拥有核武器。



Jake10
From: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
Why China wants to destroy others? Please give me a reason.
I think there is a language problem here. You may not understand the posts.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“为什么中国要去毁灭别人?请给我一个理由。”

我觉得有一个语言问题在这里。你可能没读懂上面的帖子。



YouLoveMeYouKnowIt
From: Loveland
The US did practically "nuke" North Korea. It is funny how the US managed to "nuke" North Korea without anyone actually accusing them of "nuking" North Korea. I guess Western crimes are usually just not taken into consideration.

The US dropped 800 tons of bombs on North Korea daily, more than entire Pacific War, without giving a flying f**k as to who the target was. Civilians or military (already crippled after Incheon), the US didn't care. North Korea was flattened completely. Because North Korea is such a screwed up country today we seem to just think they either deserved it (even though North Korea was far better than the South, even in terms of human rights at the time) and we don't even think if the US has done anything wrong in the war.

US bombing on North Korea caused much more harm than if it were to nuke, say, Pyongyang. Therefore, the US practically "nuked" North Korea. I think I answered the OP's question.


美国确实已经“核爆”过了朝鲜。有趣的是,美国“核爆”了朝鲜但却没有任何人真正指责过他们。我猜从来没有人思考过西方人犯下的这些罪行。

美国向朝鲜投下了800吨的炸弹,超过整个太平洋战争期间,完全不管所轰炸的目标是什么。美国根本不在乎轰炸的是平民还是军事目标(仁川之后朝鲜军队实际上已经残废)。朝鲜被完全夷为平地。就因为朝鲜今天是一个如此糟糕的国家,我们似乎就觉得这是他们应得的(实际上在当时,北朝鲜远比南朝鲜好,即使在人权方面),而我们甚至不认为美国在这场战争中做错了什么。

美国对朝鲜的轰炸所造成的伤害远超“核爆”,例如平壤。因此,美国实际上是已经“核爆”过了朝鲜。



Underlankers
All of MacArthur's arguments for nuclear strikes on the PRC mainland were invalidated by Matthew Ridgway's victories on the battlefield.

马修丠奇微后来在战场上获得的胜利,让麦克阿瑟所有对中国大陆进行核打击的论据变得苍白无力。



fruitcat
Underlankers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
Thornton Melon (Rodney Dangerfield) expresses the sentiments of the Generation before me very well in Back to School, How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel... and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China... and take it apart brick by brick... and nuke them back into the ****in' stone age forever?

In all-out warfare, one of the first benefits that the Communists gain is freedom to target MacArthur's own privileged sanctuary in Japan with air raids and whatever network of internal subversion they had. In all-out warfare, Korea is a lousy logistical basis to aim to take over all of China. It's far too small to support the logistical infrastructure required for a serious campaign in Manchuria, let alone further south. In all-out war, the USA will also be facing an inevitable war between NATO and the Soviet regimes in Europe, to which the Asian war is relegated to a sideshow. MacArthur himself sidestepped any strategic discussion of Europe when asked those questions point-blank, so that right there tells you how much his strategic 'wisdom' was worth.

引用:
作者:Wenge
“罗德尼丹泽菲尔德(译注:美国著名喜剧演员)在《回到学校》这部电影里非常好地表达过那代人的这样的情绪:为什么我们不越过三八线...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中国长城以内?... 并把它一砖一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一劳永逸地把他们炸回“石器时代”?”

打一场全面战争,共产党人得到的第一个好处就是拥有了对麦克阿瑟特权庇护下的日本进行空袭和任何从内部颠覆他们的自由。打一场全面战争,对目标是占领全中国来说,韩国是一个糟糕的后勤基地。它太小了,无法作为在满洲进行的大型战役的后勤支撑基础,更别说再往南打。打一场全面战争,美国也将面临着北约和苏联政权在欧洲不可避免的战争,相比之下亚洲的战争只是一个小插曲。麦克阿瑟本人回避了所有这些有关欧洲问题的战略讨论,因此这些可以告诉你他的战略“智慧”到底值几毛钱。

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter
It's certainly a tempting prospect. According to Max Hasting's excellent book on the Korean War one of the factors in the eventual armstice was the US's development of nuclear cannon which could be used at a tactical level.
My answer would be if they UN forces had faced defeat then certainly their use would have been justified. And if the enemy had not been prepared to come to terms in 1953 then maybe then too.

I've read Hasting's book and that was not considered among the factors for the armistice. Hastings does argue that the USA was very willing to use the Bomb, moreso than any other war, but sees this as a sign of how dangerously unbalanced the American/UN War effort was. My answer to your 101st Chairborne strategic approach is that the catastrophe of 1950 was entirely self-inflicted on MacArthur's part, as Ridgway's victories showed. Self-inflicted catastrophes are not the prelude to a world war. Sorry.

引用:
作者:SirOrmondeWinter
“这当然是一个诱人的前景。根据马克斯-黑廷斯写的关于朝鲜战争的书,最终休战的其中一个因素是美军能在战术层面使用的核大炮的发展。我的答案是,如果联合国部队面临惨败的话,核武器的使用肯定就会合理。如果敌人在1953年没有做好接受谈判的准备,那么,也许,你懂的。”

我读过黑廷斯的书,你说的可不是停战考虑的一个因素。黑廷斯确实认为,美国在这场战争中比以往任何战争都更乐意使用核弹,但他认为这是美国和联合国军的战争努力的一个非常危险的不平衡兆头。我要告诉你的是第101圆桌会议达成的观点是,李奇微的胜利显示1950年的灾难完全是麦克阿瑟自己造成的。抱歉,个人的失败不能成为引发一场世界大战的前奏。

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter
Because China didn't have the bomb yet, the Soviet arsenal was small and had practically no means of delivery and that Stalin wasn't going to risk annihilation for the sake of Korea
The US arsenal was also rather smaller at the time than people remember. Thermonuclear weapons only came into use after the war, so the USA didn't even have the best atomics for a city-busting campaign. There is no winner of a general nuclear exchange, but the Soviets deciding to initiate a conventional war in Europe in response to an American decision to initiate all-out war in Asia is one of the reasons that MacArthur was told he was endangering American strategic priorities, which he did.

引用:
作者:SirOrmondeWinter
“因为中国当时没有原子弹,而苏联的核武库太小,且几乎没有运载工具,还有斯大林是不会为朝鲜去冒毁灭性的风险 。”

美国的核武库在当时也远比人们以为的小。热核武器在二战结束后才开始被使用,美国甚至没有在城市战役中能够使用的最佳核弹。相互投核弹的结果是没有赢家,但苏联决定在欧洲打一场常规战争以回应美国在亚洲发起全面战争的决定,这也是麦克阿瑟被告知他会危及美国的战略重点的原因之一,他确实危及了。

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter
The US in May 1953 test fired the 'Honest John' nuclear cannon capable of blasting a path through the enemy defences in a tactical rather than strategic manner, allowing the UN forces to fight their way into North Korea with minimal losses
And if the UN decided to advance again in a mutually incapable of reinforcing fashion and ignored all signs of potential counterattacks that were eating into their flanks again, they'd be beaten just like they were the first time. The defeats of 1950 were the result of Dugout Doug's overweening ego and his dismissal of mere mundane reality.

引用:
作者:SirOrmondeWinter
“美国1953年5月试射了名为“诚实的约翰”的原子炮,能够通过战术而非战略的方式在敌人的防线上炸开一条大路,使联合国部队可以以最小的损失找到进入朝鲜的方式。”

如果联合国军决定在一个双方实力都得到加强的时间段再次前进,忽视任何侧翼可能再次遭到反击的潜在迹象,他们会像之前那样再次被揍。1950年的失败就是麦克阿瑟唯我独尊的自大和他对无视实际情况的结果。

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter
But the balance of power was the same, the US clearly superior in every way. Also Korea borders China so it's a long way from the USSR
Try reading a map sometime.

引用:
作者:SirOrmondeWinter
“但是力量的平衡是一样的,美国明显在各方面都有优势。另外朝鲜与中国接壤,它到苏联还有很长的一段路。”

哥们没事多看看地图撒。



Spartacuss
From: Georgia, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
All of MacArthur's arguments for nuclear strikes on the PRC mainland were invalidated by Matthew Ridgway's victories on the battlefield.

It didn't stop MacArthur from yapping pretty much to the day he died that he was right. The heavy conventional bombing of Korea and, as you say, Ridgway's tactic's make any argument for nukes on the peninsula rather moot. Ridgway did, however, request nukes standby in case of another massive Chinese attack into Korea. The JCS did consider doing so. Both on the basis of Ridgway's request, and the reported movement of some 200 bombers into Manchuria by the the Soviets. Several MK-4 bombs were dispatched to Okinawa, but their fission capsules were never installed.

引用:
作者:Underlankers
所有麦克阿瑟的论点对中国大陆的核打击在战场上是无效由马修丠奇微的胜利。

这直到麦克阿瑟死也没能使他停止嚷嚷他是正确的。对朝鲜的极度常规轰炸,正如你说的,李奇微的这战术让任何在半岛使用核武的论据变得没有意义。然而,李奇微也要求准备好核武器,以防中国军队对韩国的又一次大规模攻击。参谋长联席会议也考虑这样做。同时,按照李奇微的要求和苏联约200架轰炸机进入了满洲的相关报道,几架MK-4轰炸机也被派往了冲绳,但它们身上裂变胶囊(核武)一直没有安装。

This issue is made rather murky by the fact that the US was still struggling to establish a consistent protocol as to who controlled the nukes, and a concrete procedure for civilian control over military use, though the President retained most overall authority. The problem here was that MacArthur and some senior generals in Washington thought he should have discretionary control in the use of the bombs. It came dangerously close to being so.

It looks as though things could fall through the cracks with the procedures then in place. MacArthur almost got his hands on a bomb in August of 1950, but the plane carrying it crashed a few minutes after taking off at night from what is now Travis AFB, California bound for Guam. The fission capsule was not on board that plane. It was being carried by a second aircraft.

这问题是由一个相当隐晦的事实造成的,那就是尽管总统保留了最大的权力,但美国当时仍在致力于制定一个关于谁来掌控核武器的条例,以及如何让文职人员来控制其军事用途的具体程序。这里的问题是,麦克阿瑟和华盛顿的一些高级将领认为他们应该有全权控制使用该炸弹。它使得危险一度如此的接近。看起来好像事情可能从程序的裂缝中冒出来,然后到位。1950年的八月,麦克阿瑟几乎要得手了,但从位于现在加利福尼亚州的特拉维斯空军基地开往关岛的携带着核弹的飞机起飞几分钟后坠毁了。后来发现核弹没有装上那架飞机,它是由第二架飞机携带。

It's hard for me to say just what was planned for the bomb. I don't think MacArthur would have used it in China. There is the opinion that he may have been wanting to use a nuke tactically in Korea as, at that time, his forces were pressed into the Pusan perimeter. The MK-4's used then could have their yields adjusted from one to thirty-one kilotons, so it could be used in a tactical application.


我很难说这枚核弹的计划是怎样,但我不认为麦克阿瑟将在中国使用它。还有一种观点就是认为他可能一直想在北朝鲜使用战术核武器,在那个时候,他的部队被挤压进了釜山防御圈, MK-4的使用可以让他们的收益从1调整为31万吨,因此它可以在战术应用中使用。



RusEvo

If the shoe was on the other foot it would be hard to imagine the USA would not respond to a war right on their own border in the same way as China did (by getting involved)........ would it be right for the USA to get nuked in such a scenario?

如果鞋是在另一只脚(译注:即换位思考),对于一场在美国自己边界上开打的战争,很难想象美国不会像中国那样以同样的方式应对(介入)........ 那么在这种情况下美国被敌人核爆也是正确的喽?



nutpantz
Academician
From: Canada

Re: Should We Have Used Nukes Against China During Korea?

I can't see any scenario during that period of time where if either nuclear capable superpower had used the bomb that every other country would not have protested if not retaliated in any way possible. It also would have started not only an arms race but the sale of nuclear arms to every country that felt threatened by the super powers. It was a very fearful time.
So no I don't think using nuclear weapons would in any way have been a good idea.

回复:我们应该在朝鲜战争中向中国投原子弹吗?

我看不到在那段时间,拥有核能力的超级大国在不是核报复的情况下动用核武,其他国家会不进行抗议。它也将会引发不仅是军备竞赛,而且是核武交易到每一个感觉到超级大国威胁的国家手上。那将会是一个非常可怕的时代。

因此,我认为使用核武器绝对不会是个好主意.



--------------- 以下译者: yayayaya ---------------
更多国外译帖欢迎访问:看世界口碑网  http://www.kanshij.com/community/country/

Underlankers
MacArthur never admitted error on anything, so his refusing to admit that starting a general nuclear exchange to salvage a self-inflicted defeat is characteristic. From what I understand his actual intent in 1950 (as opposed to what he claimed in his memoirs) was a mass saturation nuclear strike on Chinese cities ala the raids on Japan and Germany, but with nuclear weapons, followed by initiating a major advance into the heart of China. Repeating the same mad methods he intended for Operation Downfall but on an even bigger scale.
         
麦克阿瑟从来没有承认任何错误,所以他拒绝承认发动一场核大战是掩盖他自身失败的借口也不过是他的本性而已。从我对他在1950年的实际意图的了解(而不是他在他的回忆录里声称那啥),对中国城市进行大规模的饱和核打击,就像之前对日本和德国那样,只是这次用的是核武器,随后便可以大踏步进入中国。这是他惯用的发动一个更大规模的疯狂来解决他的上一个失败的疯狂的手法。



Spartacuss
From: Georgia, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by RusEvo
If the shoe was on the other foot it would be hard to imagine the USA would not respond to a war right on their own border in the same way as China did (by getting involved)........ would it be right for the USA to get nuked in such a scenario?
A bit of a loaded question, there. Given the agreements and treaties with it's neighbors for mutual defense, it would not be the same. These agreements are modified from time to time, but those produced at the advent of WWII would certainly be in play. With Canada, agreements with the UK would also apply. Afaik, these are defense treaties and not applicable if either of our neighbors were the aggressor in a conflict. If no agreements existed, the US would act in it's own interests by choosing the lesser of two evils, so to speak. In doing so, she should expect nothing different than what the Chinese had to contend with as a result of their decisions. Btw, was there any treaty in existence between North Korea and the PRC that contained mutual defense clauses?

If that other shoe fit in 1950, who would do the nuking? If all things nuclear remained the same otherwise, with a near 8 to 1 ratio in favor of the US to the USSR at that time, I doubt it would have been them. But, I daresay virtually all major military establishments of the time had their share of MacArthurs in regard to using nukes, if they had them. I'm sure the Russians did. And such mentality needed to be suppressed by the political leadership. Obviously it was.


引用:
作者:RusEvo
“如果鞋是在另一只脚,对于一场在美国自己边界上开打的战争,很难想象美国不会像中国那样以同样的方式应对(介入)........ 那么在这种情况下美国被敌人核爆也是正确的喽?”

哥们,这个问题有点代入性哈。考虑到与邻居的共同防御协定和条约,情况是不一样的。虽然这些协议经常被改来改去的,但那些在二战中得到实行的肯定是有效的。与加拿大,与英国的协议也将适用。如果不是我们的邻居发生的冲突,这些防御条约就不适用了。如果没有协议,那么美国就会根据自己的利益来采取行动,算是两害取其轻吧,可以这么说。这种情况下,美国就会像中国那样不得不做出进行抗战的决策。顺便问一句,中国和北朝鲜之间有过什么共同防御的条约吗?

如果1950年的鞋子在另一只脚上,那么谁会使用核武?如果所有的事情保持不变,在美国对苏联有着近8比1的优势下,我怀疑会是他们。但是,我敢说几乎所有主要军事机构都会跟麦克阿瑟一样认为自己有权使用核武器,如果他们有核武的话。我敢肯定俄国人会是这样。而这样的心态需要有政治领导人来抑制。显然,这是必须的。

(小编:这哥们答非所问,忽悠能力不是一般的强哈^o^)



Spartacuss
From: Georgia, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Repeating the same mad methods he intended for Operation Downfall but on an even bigger scale.

He also is reported to have said that he wanted to use some 30 a-bombs across "the throat" of Manchuria to create a belt of cobalt radiation that would insure keeping the Chinese from entering Korea for at least 60 years. Here's the source: http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html. Take it with a grain of salt. It references an interview with MacArthur not published publicly until 1964. The footnotes give who wrote the info, but I have yet to get any other source that presents the quotes as stated here.

I have no love for MacArthur, but I will not tag something on him if he did not actually say such things. I'm still looking. What makes me leery is the cobalt thing. No cobalt bomb existed the US inventory. Something known as a "salted bomb" concept was tested in 1950 one time and declared a failure. Other cobalt work did not take place until after the Korean war, with the eventual decision not to produce cobalt weapons. It's entirely possible MacArthur was gilding the lily again in a rewrite of his justifications. I present the source for consideration, and maybe someone can find confirmation quicker than I.

引用:
作者:Underlankers
“这是他惯用的发动一个更大规模的疯狂来解决他的上一个失败的疯狂的手法。”

据报道说,他还想用约30枚核弹来封锁住满洲的“咽喉”,由此制造出一片钴辐射地带以确保中国至少60年无法进入韩国。下面是信息来源:http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html, 姑且当小道消息看吧,它从未被公开引用发表,直到1964年采访了麦克阿瑟。最下面有作者信息,但我还没有从其他任何来源得到印证。我对麦克阿瑟没有好感,但我也不会抹黑他,如果他实际上没有说这样的话。

我还在寻找答案。让我疑惑的是钴的事情,美国的核武库里没有钴炸弹。一种被称为“咸鱼炸弹”的武器在1950年进行了测试,但宣布失败了。其他有关钴的工作都未能继续,直到朝鲜战争之后,并最终决定不生产钴武器。这是完全有可能是麦克阿瑟写辩护书的时候填油加醋般加上去的。我把信息来源贴在这里供参考,也许有人可以比我更快找到确认。

(译注:take sth. with a grain of salt 这个习语的字面意思是“和一撮盐一起吃下去”,为什么要与盐一起吃呢?据说这个习语要追溯到罗马时代,罗马将军庞培曾发现一种解毒剂,必须和着一小把盐才服得下去。解毒剂难咽,加了盐也许好咽些,于是这句习语用于描述对一些不靠谱的,值得怀疑的东西,得“和着盐”才能勉强接受。现在,对某件事情或某人说的话有所保留,将信将疑,持怀疑态度,就可以说take it with a grain of salt. 英文注释是:To take something with a grain of salt means to accept it but to maintain a degree of skepticism about its truth. )



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
I think no one can stop China strategy. Chinese people are very smart and brave.The Korean War result is obvious, it started in the Yalu River, ended in 38th Parallel line. Who is the winner? It is obvious.
The world nationalism can't threaten China with any excuses.
And even nuclear weapons.
If the United States use nuclear weapons to destroy China, China.
I believe that the Chinese people is more excellent than the jews.
         
我想没有人能阻止中国的战略。中国人很聪明,勇敢。朝鲜战争的结果是显而易见的,它始于鸭绿江,在三八线结束。谁是赢家?这是显而易见的。
世界民族主义不可能用任何借口威胁到中国。哪怕是核武器,如果美国想用核武器来摧毁中国的话。
我相信中国人比犹太人更优秀。



Underlankers
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
I think no one can stop China strategy. Chinese people are very smart and brave.
The Korean War result is obvious, it started in the Yalu River, ended in 38th Parallel line. Who is the winner? It is obvious.

Matthew Ridgway managed to not only stop it but to use that weight of firepower and superior mobility to reverse it.
         

引用:
最初发布者fruitcat
“我想没有人能阻止中国的战略。中国人很聪明,勇敢。朝鲜战争的结果是显而易见的,它始于鸭绿江,在三八线结束。谁是赢家?这是显而易见的。”

马修丠奇微不仅成功地阻止它,还用超强的火力和良好的机动性来扭转了战局。



Karamzin
From: Russian Federation
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
I think no one can stop China strategy. Chinese people are very smart and brave.
Smart yes. Brave? I heard another opiniions as well
         
引用:
最初发布者fruitcat
“我想没有人能阻止中国的战略。中国人很聪明,勇敢。”

聪明没错。勇敢嘛,我听到过另一种观点。



Spartacuss
From: Georgia, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
I believe that the Chinese people is more excellent than the jews.
Erm... wtf?

引用:
最初发布者fruitcat
“我相信中国人比犹太人更优秀。”

呃... 谁说的?



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karamzin
Smart yes. Brave? I heard another opiniions as well
China in order to save power.China did not want to go war other people , even if russia.
This is wisdom.SAVE POWER.This is great wisdom.
Chinese patience is not equal to let other countries provoke China.
The real sword will not easily be used to kill.
       
引用:
作者:Karamzin
“聪明没错。勇敢嘛,我听到过另一种观点。”

中国为了韬光养晦.中国不想跟任何国家打仗,即使是俄罗斯。
这就是智慧。 韬光养晦,这是一种大智慧。
但中国的忍耐不等于是让其他国家来挑衅中国。
真正的剑是不会轻易拔出来杀人的。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
The Korean War result is obvious, it started in the Yalu River, ended in 38th Parallel line. Who is the winner? It is obvious.
I believe that the Chinese people is more excellent than the jews.

The war started on the 38th Parallel. What do the Jews have to do with the Chinese people or this thread?

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“朝鲜战争的结果是显而易见的,它开始在鸭绿江,在三八线结束。 谁是赢家? 这是显而易见的。我相信中国人比犹太人更优秀。”

战争是从三八线开始的。 还有犹太人跟中国人或者这个帖子有半毛钱关系?



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Chinese are more smarter than jews.

中国人比犹太人更聪明。



Vladimir1984
From: Siberia, deep in taiga
It is obvious Jews are smarter than some people in this thread.
         
显而易见的是犹太人比这帖子里的一些人更聪明。



Wenge
American
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
Chinese are more smarter than jews.
You cannot prove that the chinese are smarter than Jewish people and Jewish people have nothing to do with this thread.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“中国人比犹太人更聪明。”

你不能证明中国人比犹太人聪明跟这帖子有毛关系。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
You cannot prove that the chinese are smarter than Jewish people and Jewish people have nothing to do with this thread.
If the American University admission percentage is not restricted Asian Americans, I am afraid that Berkeley or Harvard University
has more than half of the students are chinese. Chinese are smart, there is no doubt.
The percentage of Chinese people in the United States is less than two percent, however, Chinese own many Nobel Prize in the United States, not only such, Chinese often activities in the United States at many important people departments.they are more smart then jews.


引用:
作者:Wenge
“你不能证明中国人比犹太人聪明跟这帖子有毛关系。”

如果美国大学的录取比例没有限制亚裔美国人,恐怕伯克利或哈佛大学里超过一半的学生是中国人。中国人是聪明的,这毫无疑问。
中国人在美国的比例不到两成,但是在美国有许多中国人获得诺贝尔奖。不仅如此,中国人在美国的许多活动中都充当重要的角色,他们比犹太人更聪明。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir1984
It is obvious Jews are smarter than some people in this thread.
Yes, it is really like some people blame others.

引用:
作者:Vladimir1984
“显而易见的是犹太人比这帖子里的一些人更聪明。”

是的,就像这里有些人总喜欢指责别人。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
The percentage of Chinese people in the United States is less than two percent, however, Chinese own many Nobel Prize in the United States
The Chinese own no Nobel prizes in the U.S. all those Nobel Prizes were won by Americans no matter what their heritage.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“中国人在美国的比例不到两成,但是在美国有许多中国人获得诺贝尔奖。”

没有中国人在美国获得过诺贝尔奖,在美国获得诺贝尔奖的都是美国人,不管他们的种族是什么。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
China invented the Zhouyi, Westerners used binary system ( based on zhouyi).
         
中国发明了周易,西方人使用二进制系统(基于周易)。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
So the entire world invented many things and other countries took those things and made them better. The Chinese are no smarter than
anyone else and for that matter what have the Chinese invented in the last 400 years?

整个世界发明了许多东西,有些国家采用了那些东西并使它们变得更好。 中国人并不比任何人聪明,还有,中国人在过去的400年间有发明过什么东西吗?



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
The Chinese own no Nobel prizes in the U.S. all those Nobel Prizes were won by Americans no matter what their heritage.
Steven zhu. The United States Department of energy.
He is a Chinese, he is a Nobel owner.
There are so many examples of Chinese scientists.
Chen Ning Yang (1922) professor at the center for advanced study. Born in Anhui, in 1942 graduated from the southwest United University Physics Department, 1944 in the southwest United University graduate, the United States in 1945 to study, studies at University of Chicago, Ph.D., former University of Chicago lecturer, Institute for advanced study in Princeton, researchers, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Professor and director of the Institute of physics, is an academician of the Academy of Sciences, the United States of America fellow of the Royal Society, China foreign academician of the Academy of science. And Li Zhengdao cooperation, the weak interaction nonconservation of parity theory, won the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics together. Do a lot of pioneering work in particle physics.

Zhengdao [1], born in 1926 in Shanghai, Jiangsu Province, Columbia University University Professor, Chinese American physicist and Nobel Laureate in physics, because, in parity nonconservation, Lee model, relativistic heavy ion collision (RHIC) physics, and non topological soliton theory field contribution of famous. In 1957, when he was 31 years old and Chen Ning Yang won the Nobel Prize in physics, for the discovery of parity nonconservation weak role in. Their findings, confirmed by the Wu Jianxiong experiment. The late nineteen sixties field algebra theory. 70 in the early study of CP spontaneous symmetry breaking problem, discovery and research of non topological soliton, and the establishment of the theory of soliton bag model of hadron structure. Li Zhengdao and Chen Ning Yang won the Nobel Prize is the earliest chinese.

Cheng Tong, a Shing-Tung Yau, the International Master of mathematics, the famous Chinese mathematician, Guangdong Guangdong Jiaoling origin, was born in Shantou, Harvard University, Professor, academician of American Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences foreign academician of the Academy of the Republic of China, the central research institute. Include Fields prize, Wolf prize, the Crafoord prize, three top award; after his mentor Chen Shengshen, who won the Wolf prize for Mathematics in second chinese. He proved that the Calabi conjecture, Calabi named after him - Yau manifold, is the basic concept of string theory in physics, and made important contribution to the development of differential geometry and mathematical physics.

Zhao Zhong (Samuel Chao Chung Ting) (January 27, 1936 -), born in 1936, the United States of America experimental physicist. Han, native of Shandong province Rizhao City Tao Luo, Chinese Americans, the United States is currently professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has won the 1976 Nobel Prize in physics. He had found a new elementary particle physics, and the literature used to indicate an electromagnetic flow of the Latin alphabet "J" will be the new particle named "J particles

Terence Chi-Shen Tao, July 15, 1975, Tao Zhexuan was born in Australia Adelaide, is the eldest son of the family. Currently teaches at the United States Department of mathematics of University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Chinese mathematician, Australian Chinese mathematics professor in Australia only won the highest honor "mathematical fields Award", second Chinese following the 1982 Qiu Chengtong award. The doctorate degree from the Princeton University in 1996 and taught in the UCLA, 24 years old when he was appointed professor UCLA.

Some of them have Chinese Passport. Some people's ancestors are the native chinese.


引用:
作者:Wenge
“没有中国人在美国获得过诺贝尔奖,在美国获得诺贝尔奖的都是美国人,不管他们的种族是什么。”

史蒂芬朱。 美国能源部。他是一个中国人,他是诺贝尔奖所有者。
这样的中国科学家的例子有很多。

杨振宁(1922)教授。 出生于安徽,1942年进入西南联合大学物理系,1944年毕业于西南联合大学, 1945年到美国留学,在芝加哥大学读博士,曾担任芝加哥大学的讲师,普林斯顿大学研究所研究员,纽约州立大学石溪分校教授和物理研究所所长,英国皇家学会科学院高级研究员,中国外交院院士。 与李政道合作,一起荣获1957年诺贝尔物理学奖。 对粒子物理学做出了很多开创性的贡献。

李政道,1926年出生于江苏省上海,哥伦比亚大学教授,美国华人物理学家,诺贝尔物理学奖得主,因为相对论重离子碰撞(RHIC)物理,和非拓朴孤立子著名理论领域的贡献。 …. (全是专业内容,翻得太累了)  李政道和杨振宁是最早获得诺贝尔奖的中国人。

丘成桐,一位数学国际大师,中国著名数学家,广东广东蕉岭人,出生在汕头,哈佛大学教授,美国科学院院士,中国科学院国外院士。 拥有菲尔兹奖,沃尔夫奖,克拉福德奖三大奖项。在他的导师陈省身之后,是获得沃尔夫数学奖的第二个中国人。 他证明了卡拉比猜想,卡拉比,用他的名字命名,是弦理论物理学中的基本概念,并为微分几何和数学物理的发展做出重要贡献。

丁肇中(1936年1月27日 - ),出生于1936年,美国实验物理学家。 汉族,祖籍山东省日照市,华裔美国人,目前是美国麻省理工学院教授,曾荣获1976年诺贝尔物理学奖。 他发现了一个新的物理学基本粒子,用拉丁字母“J” 来表示的电磁流量,将被命名为“J粒子的新粒子。

陶哲轩,1975年7月15日,陶哲轩出生在澳大利亚的阿德莱德,是家中的长子。 现任教于美国加州大学洛杉矶分校数学分校(UCLA),1982年继丘成桐获得最高荣誉“数学领域奖”后的第二个中国人。 1996年取得普林斯顿大学博士学位,任教于加州大学洛杉矶分校,24岁的时候,他被任命为加州大学洛杉矶分校教授。

他们中有些人拥有中国护照 。 有些人的祖先是土生土长的中国人。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
The Chinese are no smarter than anyone else and for that matter what have the Chinese invented in the last 400 years?

In AD 1600.
Li Shizhen's "compendium of Materia Medica", Song Yingxing's "Heavenly Creations", Xu Guangqi's "Nong", Fang Yizhi's "physical". "The travels of Xu Xiake" and other works and is now we study and learn from the ancient technology of valuable literature. Yu Qian writes "Yong coal" poetry at that time, coal has been widely applied. Meter into the "Yuanye" is the landscape architecture works. Ming Dynasty military technology is developed, at the end of the Ming Dynasty have been had guns, and powerful artillery. There is a named 10000 people, sitting in the tied with gunpowder stick chair, trying to use gunpowder thrust to fly in the sky, but failed, to be the first in the world to explore space at the expense of the people 1 astronomical weather: White Ape Offering three figure in the mid fourteenth Century "" (author unknown) with the one hundred and thirty-two images, and linked with the weather changes, the vast majority of modern meteorology is consistent with the principle of. (Europe to the year 1879 was published only sixteen pieces of cloud. In 1383 1439 the imperial Observatory) Nanjing Beijing home made armillary sphere (1900 by the Eight Power Allied forces in Germany from.1921 to the Purple Mountain Observatory, Nanjing) 1442 Beijing Observatory built in 1446 in the shadows (located in the southwest side of Beijing Ancient Observatory) written by Li Zhizao muddy through constitutional illustrated publication (introduced western astronomy interpretation huntian theory) 1617 Zhang Xie "Eastern Western Monthly" records of climate and ocean with data. 1634 formally installed China's first telescope Tong: (Yong) the 2 Mathematical Physics: in 1450, Wu Jing Zhuan the nine chapter than class algorithm Daquan Zhu; 1584 (Yu) with the essence of "Lulu" published in 1592 by Cheng Dawei the &gt algorithm; the earliest recorded use abacus methods square and cubic meters in 1606 with Matteo Xu Guangqi started the geometry; 1613 Li Zhizao according to westerner carat Weiss practical arithmetic of and China algorithm; Cheng Dawei; Tong Zong compiled Tongwen Suanzhi 1637, Song Yingxing in the "sound" of gas and gas to sound in the generation and propagation of scientific explanation, he thought that the sound is generated by vibration or impact of rapid movement of air, sound travels through air, similar with water. Fang Yizhi in the "general" presented in the physical volume: Zhou (time) round Yu Yu (space), then Yu in the universe


引用:
作者:Wenge
“中国人并不比任何人聪明,还有,中国人在过去的400年间有发明过什么东西吗?”

在公元1600年。
李时珍的“本草纲目”,宋应星的“天工开物”,徐光启的“农”,方以智的“物理”。 “徐霞客游记”等著作,现在是我们学习研究古代技术和借鉴的宝贵文献。于谦在那个时候写的 “永煤”诗歌,说明煤炭已被广泛应用。 “园冶”是景观建筑作品。 明代军事科技发达,明代后期已经有枪,和强大的火炮。 有一个名为万的人,坐在绑有火药棒的椅子上,试图利用火药的推力来飞上天,但失败了,是世界上第一个探索太空的人。白猿在14世纪中期提供的132副图像(作者不详),与天气变化紧密联系,现代气象学的绝大多数原则是一致的。 (欧洲到1879年才出版了仅16个云。)南京北京的浑天仪(1900年被八国联军德国军队运到南京的紫金山天文台)。北京天文台建于1446年(位于北京古观象台西南侧)1617张协状元“东西洋考每月”气候和海洋数据的记录。 1634正式安装了中国第一望远镜。数学物理:1450年,武荆珠算法大全朱<比类九章>,1584(余)出版在1592年郑大为<在>算法; 最早记载使用珠算方法计算平方米和立方米,1606年利玛窦与徐光启开始的<几何形状;> 1613年李之藻按照西方人克拉魏斯<实用算术>和中国<算法大位;童宗编译> <同文算指> 1637年,宋应星在“声音”天然气及天然气声音的产生和科学解释的传播,他认为声音是由振动或空气的快速运动产生的影响,声音穿过空气与水相似。 方以智在“一般”呈现在物理卷中:“周(时间)轮俞渝(空格),然后宇在宇宙中。

(译注:这段太专业,不知道作者从哪复制粘贴过来的,随意用翻译器翻下,大概知道个意思就是了)



Eamonn10
From: Ireland
Fruitcat, I have to agree with Wenge. To say one nationality is smarter than another is ridiculous. A lot of these achievements can be put down to superior numbers. I know some members of the Jewish community in Dublin and their some of the smartest guys i know and very nice people too.
 
Fruitcat,我不得不同意Wenge。 说一个民族比另一个民族更聪明是非常荒谬的。 其他民族一样可以罗列出很多这样的成就。 我认识在都柏林犹太社区的一些成员和他们中的一些非常聪明的人,我知道他们也是非常优秀的。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn10
I know some members of the Jewish community in Dublin and their some of the smartest guys i know and very nice people too.

Dear friend,
The Jews love of money more than the quality of human. The Jews can use unscrupulous divisive tactics for money.
You can find the Jews elegant appearance of truth.But the Jews have no fixed Countryso the Jews have no patriotic at all.
The above, the Chinese people won't do such things
Under the Jewish appearance, is a money worship, be full of craft and cunning character. They will use clever for property instead of Chinese wisdom and hard-working quality to win respect.

引用:
作者:Eamonn10
“我认识在都柏林犹太社区的一些成员和他们中的一些非常聪明的人,我知道他们也是非常优秀的。 ”

亲爱的朋友, 犹太人对钱的热衷超越对人的素质。
犹太人可以不择手段的赚钱。
你可以见到外形优雅的犹太人。但犹太人没有固定的国家,所以犹太人没有爱国情感可言。
综合上述,中国人是不会做这样的事 的。
犹太人的外表下是一个拜金的,诡计多端的性格。他们把聪明用在财产上,而不是像中国人那样用智慧和勤劳的品质来赢得尊重。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitcat
Steven zhu. The United States Department of energy.
He is a Chinese, he is a Nobel owner.
There are so many examples of Chinese scientists.

Most of the people of Chinese heritage who have won the Prize while being Americans could have never won the prize if they had lived in China. China would not have allowed them to be so productive. Some of these people had to abandon their own country so they could do the work they were capable of.

Most of the people you are claiming are only Chinese by heritage. When they won the Prize they were Americans. There heritage is unimportant. It is their citizenship that matters.

引用:
作者:fruitcat
“史蒂芬朱。 美国能源部。他是一个中国人,他是诺贝尔奖所有者。 这样的中国科学家的例子有很多。 ”

大多数成为美国人后获得诺贝尔奖的华人如果一直呆在中国,很可能永远没可能获奖。 中国无法让他们能有如此的成就。 其中一些人不得不放弃自己的国家,以使他们有机会做他们能做的工作。

大多数你提到的人都是从血统上说是中国人而已。 他们赢奖的时候可都是美国人。 血统是不重要的,重要的是他们的公民身份。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Please don't insult the Chinese family, Chinese great respect for ancestors, even after hundreds of years, also home to worship their ancestors.
You're wrong. Chinese heart is not american.

They have the United States account equal to the americans?

I'm afraid this is your wish.

I'm afraid the Nobel Prize winner Ding Zhaozhong words are Chinese rather than american english.
         
请不要侮辱中国人的家庭,中国人对祖先很尊重,即使历经数百年,也会回家祭拜祖先。
你错了。 他们的心是中国的,而不是美国的。
他们有美国护照就等于是美国人? 恐怕这只是你的愿望。
我恐怕诺贝尔奖获得者丁肇中说的话是中文,而不是美国英语。



Wenge
American
From: The True Capital of China
I have insulted no one. We have nothing more to discuss. China had the where with al to put their only Peace Prize winner in a prison. Their winner in Literature cannot get published in his own country and he had to abandon China in order to be heard.
Samuel Chao Chung Ting is an American physicist who received the Nobel Prize in 1976, with Burton Richter, for discovering the subatomic J/ψ particle. He is the principal investigator for the international $1.5 billion Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer experiment which was installed on the International Space Station on 19 May 2011. Samuel Ting was born on January 27, 1936, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_C._C._Ting


我没有侮辱任何人。我们间没有什么更多需要讨论的了。 中国把他们唯一获得过和平/奖的人关在监狱。 他们的文学获奖者无法在自己的国家发表作品,他不得不放弃中国才能让自己的声音被听到。
丁肇中是美国物理学家,与伯顿里克特一起因发现了亚原子J /ψ粒子而获得1976年的诺贝尔奖。 他是一个于2011年5月19日安装在国际空间站的15亿阿尔法磁谱仪的主要研发者。 丁肇中出生于1936年1月27日,是在密歇根州安阿伯。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_C._C._Ting



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge
I have insulted no one. We have nothing more to discuss. China had the where with al to put their only Peace Prize winner in a prison. Their winner in Literature cannot get published in his own country and he had to abandon China in order to be heard.

Chinese is excellent, but Chinese is not your relatives, it seems you can not interfere with a person's private life. You are not the World police.
You don't have the ability to oppose or exclude chinese.why not take the other road? Did you want liberation of all mankind?
         
引用:
作者:文阁
“我没有侮辱任何人。我们间没有什么更多需要讨论的了。 中国把他们唯一获得过和平/奖的人关在监狱。 他们的文学获奖者无法在自己的国家发表作品,他不得不放弃中国才能让自己的声音被听到。”

中国人是优秀的,但中国不是你的亲属,所以你不能干涉别人的私生活。 你不是世界警察。
你没有反对或排挤中国人的能力. 为什么不选择另一条道路? 你想解放全人类?



Avon (管理员)

Dear fruitcat,

Getting banned from a forum and returning under another account to deliberately spout this sort of unintelligent rubbish in the hope that you'll anger the membership is not a good use of your time. You only go and get banned again.

Now that the cat's been put out, it's time to put this thread to bed.

Thread closed.


亲爱的fruitcat,

请不要把您的时间用于在论坛上被封号后用其他帐号重新出来故意喷这种不明智的垃圾言论,以期激怒其他会员。 您这样只能是会再次被封号。

现在,这只猫被清出去了,是时候把这个帖子关闭了。

帖子到此关闭。

(小编:这位来自兰州的热血,爱国,但却不太懂得如何与外国网民交流的年轻人fruitcat最终因自己的不礼貌以及对犹太人的偏见而被封号了 (貌似还不是第一次)。。希望广大有志于在互联网上为祖国说话的爱国筒子们吸取教训,尊重他人,文明交流,这样才能为国争光哦!)

更多
评论加载中。。。
我还要发表看法:
"看世界"温馨提醒:
1、请勿发表违反国家法律评论,评论请文明用语;
2、禁止发布广告评论。
匿名发表  用户名: 密码: 验证码:

浏览过本页的网友还关注:
加拿大译帖 - 热门推荐
第一赞助商
双语美文 - 阅读榜
第二赞助商
加拿大译帖 - 最新收录
第三赞助商
国外优秀论坛 - 为您推荐
第四赞助商
经验分享 - 阅读榜
欢迎爱好网帖翻译的朋友加入我们:
QQ群:307195648
联系邮箱:seas_2000@sina.com
无觅关联推荐,快速提升流量