用戶名:   密碼:

當前位置:首頁社區國外譯帖加拿大西方網民:我們應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國扔原子彈嗎?
看世界譯帖
加拿大

西方網民:我們應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國扔原子彈嗎?


Should We Have Used Nukes Against China During Korea?
譯者:yayayaya 等     發布時間:2013-12-18     超過 0 位網友閱讀

為什么我們不越過三八線...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中國長城以內?... 并把它一磚一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一勞永逸地把他們炸回“石器時代”?

原文鏈接: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?
我們應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國扔原子彈嗎?

朝鮮核戰

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.

美國應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國扔原子彈嗎?

大家也許知道,聯合國方面的指揮官麥克阿瑟曾經想用原子彈轟炸中國東北的飛機場或者甚至是城市。杜魯門后來撤銷了他的指揮官職務。

那我們當年是否應該對他們使用核武器?

就我個人而言,我認為如果使用核武器,那我們就會冒與蘇聯發生更大規模戰爭的風險,如果完全摧毀掉一大批中國的城市我們就不會再有道德制高點。所以我們依然應該用普通轟炸方式而不是核武器。



--------------- 以下譯者: yayayaya ---------------
更多國外譯帖歡迎訪問:看世界口碑網  http://www.slyzfk.live/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.
   
我很難相信任何有理智的人會提出類似的提議,麥克阿瑟當時到底是怎么想的這反倒是個更好的問題。他會令我們陷進一場核戰爭,因為我真的沒有看到蘇聯在這種情況下還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.

羅德尼·丹澤菲爾德(譯注:美國著名喜劇演員)在《回到學校》這部電影里非常好地表達過那代人的這樣的情緒:為什么我們不越過三八線...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中國長城以內?... 并把它一磚一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一勞永逸地把他們炸回“石器時代”?

核轟炸他們不是個辦法,那樣必然會引發全世界的全面戰爭。不過或許這能令我們提早結束與蘇聯和紅色中國的冷戰,今天就會有將近20億更自由的人在世界上生活。但也可能相反!誰知道呢?

如果美國真的想核爆中國那么他們在1970年錯過了一次機會,當時蘇聯曾經想侵略中國。



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.
   
因為無法知道蘇聯會怎么回應對中國核攻擊,無法確定它是否會是一個正確的決定。 我猜蘇聯將會全面轟炸歐洲和亞洲,由此拉開第三次世界大戰的序幕,而且它幾乎可以肯定將會是一場核戰爭。

說到底,核戰爭被避免了。然而,現在全世界不得不去處理有可能引發核戰的北朝鮮的問題。



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:
“羅德尼·丹澤菲爾德(譯注:美國著名喜劇演員)在《回到學校》這部電影里非常好地表達過那代人的這樣的情緒:為什么我們不越過三八線...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中國長城以內?... 并把它一磚一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一勞永逸地把他們炸回“石器時代”?”

那將會是一個大場面,這位教授在對有關越南妹妹問題上的回應也許更出色一點。

想在中國內戰期間阻止共產黨人是很難的,也許根本就是不可能的。



laketahoejwb
From: Incline Village near Lake Tahoe

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

我很高興杜魯門總統說沒門。麥克阿瑟去死吧。



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
“我們當年是否應該對他們使用核武器?”

我不知道 - 但我確實覺得你這帖子里的話太麻木不仁了。



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 - 但我確實覺得你這帖子里的話太麻木不仁了。”

為什么呢? 我后面緊跟著說那是一個可怕的想法。



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,你不應該有這種想法。

生活中一個不幸的事實,就是并非每個人都會和你有著相同的觀點和看法.....哪怕是政治方面。

用核彈把對方都蒸發掉可不是一個正確的答案。引起世界范圍的核沖突,甚至只是常規沖突也不是。再強調一下,當時離上一場大戰結束只有6年的時間。

也許我們可以用常規方法攻擊中國境內的物質中轉站,但即使這樣,考慮到俄國人,這也是個無法預知結果的做法。

我提兩個問題,

1)Wenge,你經歷過什么事情嗎?你生活在中國但似乎還懷有對中國的某種仇恨(也許只是對共產黨),告訴我一下。

2)Historybuffkg70,北朝鮮為什么要發動核戰爭呢?

首先,我不認為北朝鮮有許多核武器,他們肯定也沒有部署過可靠的投送系統。我甚至不認為他們有特別尖端/可靠的核彈。

反正這是我現在所知道的。



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
“我提兩個問題,
1)Wenge,你經歷過什么事情嗎?你生活在中國但似乎還懷有對中國的某種仇恨(也許只是對共產黨),告訴我一下。”

沒有,我對中國人民只有深厚,永恒的愛。我鄙視中國政府,還有他們62年來的政策以及對待中國人民的做法。沒有人,我的意思是沒有任何人可以指責我對這個偉大國家的普通民眾懷有不好的感覺。



Mandate of Heaven

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

不,但他們應該使用核壟斷來賺點好處,但他們沒把它利用好。



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)Historybuffkg70,什么是北韓要發動核戰爭?
首先,我不認為北朝鮮有許多核武器,他們肯定也沒有部署過可靠的投送系統。我甚至不認為他們有特別尖端/可靠的核彈。”

朝鮮正在同時研發核武器和火箭。也許對他們何時能部署核武器的問題上人們有不同的看法,但所有人都認為他們很快就會擁有這些。 他們還在研發長程導彈,射程基本上能到達日本,并且最終打到阿拉斯加。導彈精度不是一個真正的問題,因為他們最有可能的目標將是非軍事區南部的首爾。

美軍在韓國有相當多的部隊。他們既是對北朝鮮軍事行動的阻嚇,但同時也是一個“觸發器”,因為任何對韓國的攻擊也將導致美軍的大量傷亡 - 尤其是核攻擊。 美軍的傷亡加上美韓的親盟關系將迫使美國政府不得不以沉重的打擊來報復朝鮮。中國在上一場戰爭中已經堅定地捍衛了朝鮮。他們幾乎肯定會再次這樣做。這將使至少兩個核大國被卷入一場戰爭中,即使朝鮮只是發動常規攻擊。世界上的其他強國到時也將發揮各自的作用。這意味著,朝鮮甚至不必發動核攻擊就能引發一場全球性戰爭。



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
“中國在上一場戰爭中已經堅定地捍衛了朝鮮。他們幾乎肯定會再次這樣做。”

如果你覺得現在的中國還像冷戰時期的中國,而且普遍受過高等教育,家境殷實,有一定的政治和言論自由的中國民眾還會以他們的全部力量來幫助一個貧困的(沒有任何好處),被一個連中國人也承認被邊緣化了的領導者帶領下的國家,那你對目前的形勢還真不算了解。

在非帝制的中國只會有一個毛澤東。人們已經在左傾和右傾的騷亂中得到了目前相對較溫和及開放的政府。如果這時候再來一個毛澤東,人們會造反的。



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
“如果你覺得現在的中國還像冷戰時期的中國,而且普遍受過高等教育,家境殷實....”

“普遍受過高等教育,家境殷實,有一定的政治和言論自由的”中國人絕對還是少數。

引用: “國民收入的增漲在中國并沒有停滯。 2010年上半年農村人均收入增長了13%,至每年935美元,城市則增長了10%,達每年2965美元。 然而,在北京,上海和廣州郊區貧民窟的增加證明了貧富差距在幾千新崛起的富人與百萬窮人間正緩慢擴大。”

引用:“其中一個原因是一項制度限制了1.5億以上的農民工享受到諸如醫療,教育,養老等提供給城鎮居民的福利。 因此,新移民被迫節省更多的工資來支付醫療和他們退休后的費用,李說。 他們的收入也越來越受食品價格上漲(通貨膨脹率徘徊在5%左右)和住房價格上漲(每年十二月份上升6.4%)所擠壓。 ”  —— “中國的收入差距擴大” - 《商業周刊》



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
“在非帝制的中國只會有一個毛澤東。人們已經在左傾和右傾的騷亂中得到了目前相對較溫和及開放的政府。如果這時候再來一個毛澤東,人們會造反的。”

我記得天/an/門,我看不出中國人能夠真正被認為是自由的。如果政府希望國民去做一些事情,就會強迫他們去做,即使要殺死他們中的一些來迫使他們遵從。 我認為這個政權肯定會愿意并能夠迫使本國公民參軍,并再次對韓國人和美國人開戰。 
中國政府公開重申其與朝鮮牢固的合作關系,也一直堅定地期望朝鮮能成為反對韓國和美國在亞太影響力的緩沖區。

今天的《赫芬頓郵報》上有一篇關于當前形勢的很好的文章。這是鏈接: 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: 哈德遜哈伯曾測試“在實際操作中會被原子武器攻擊影響的各類活動,包括武器裝配和調試,運輸,地面制導炸彈瞄準等”。 轟炸實測數據表明,原子彈在戰術上對集結步兵無效,因為“及時發現大規模敵軍集結是極為罕見的”。

核攻擊命令是由杜魯門簽署的,但它被視為對付地面集結部隊好看不中用。 它也許對中國的供應基地能起作用... 然而,這會引發蘇聯轟炸機開始對日本進行攻擊。還有法國和英國擔心對中國的戰爭會削弱北約的實力,使當蘇軍挺進西德的時候他們無法得到強大的伙伴援助。

毛主席語錄里的話還說過,中國能在核戰爭中生存下來,中國80-90%的人口生活在農村,不少人能活下來。 這很像我們現在面對伊朗的困境, 短時間占領該國沒有任何作用。



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
“朝鮮正在同時研發核武器和火箭…這意味著,朝鮮甚至不必發動核攻擊就能引發一場全球性戰爭。”

朝鮮并不具備跟我們在二戰結束時類似的核能力。 他們制造并引爆了兩個疑似核裝置(地下),那是相當粗糙的設備。至于導彈技術方面,他們很多年前就已經能夠發射導彈打到日本。 事實上,他們已經好幾次這樣做了。 他們目前的太空技術只是不大能夠把衛星送入軌道,運載火箭往往在飛到一半就分崩離析了。

就中國而言,中國過去是朝鮮的支持者,但只是在防守端。他們相當清楚地向朝鮮表明,如果我們或者韓國不管出于什么原因再次入侵朝鮮,中國會繼續支持他們。但中國也相當清楚地表明,如果朝鮮決定發動攻擊,那他們只能指望自己。 中國并不比我們更愿意被卷入與其他核大國的公開沖突,他們絕對不希望冒險與我們公開敵對,因為他們的經濟在很大程度上依賴于與我們的自由貿易協定。

哦,順便說一下,目前只有大約2萬名美軍駐扎在韓國。 我們已經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國人主張對這項策略(譯注:指核爆中國)開“綠燈”,根據一些論壇所說,相當“邪惡”。



--------------- 以下譯者: 天天 ---------------
更多國外譯帖歡迎訪問:看世界口碑網  http://www.slyzfk.live/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
“美國應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國扔原子彈嗎?
大家也許知道,聯合國方面的指揮官麥克阿瑟曾經想用原子彈轟炸中國東北的飛機場或者甚至是城市。杜魯門后來撤銷了他的指揮官職務。”

我們是否應該核爆他們?

就個人而言,我認為使用核武器會令我們冒與蘇聯發生更大規模戰爭的危險,如果完全摧毀一大批中國城市會令我們喪失道德制高點。所以我們還是應該使用制導炸彈而非核彈。

如果麥克阿瑟當初將他的想法付諸實踐,那我們現在肯定都是在講中文了,或者,沒人再講中文了。



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
“如果美國真的想核爆中國那么他們在1970年錯過了一次機會,當時蘇聯曾經想侵略中國。 ”

你有相關資料不?

我曾經讀過資料說蘇聯與中國之間爆發戰爭的可能性遠比北約與華約之間的更大。

蘇聯擔心中國入侵,集中了大量的資源沿中蘇邊境建立了防線。



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
“你有相關資料不? ”

這里有一個:報告稱在1969年 尼克松阻止了蘇聯對中國進行核攻擊。



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
“這里有一個:報告稱在1969年 尼克松阻止了蘇聯對中國進行核攻擊。”

一個中國歷史學家 - 看看該事件的美國方面的解密文件是很有趣的。 或者蘇維埃方面的真實檔案。
如果它們真的存在的話那我會相當驚訝 - 蘇聯從來沒有一意孤行地發動核戰爭,古巴導彈危機和柏林空運事件就是證明。
由于擔心外國入侵,因此沿其邊境建立防線。



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.
         
旁觀者

作為一位曾親自在中國工作,并且走訪了它的幾個周邊領國的東南亞專職英語老師,對這個問題我有以下的意見:

對中國使用核武器在最初提出的時候就是合理的,直到今天仍然是合理的。 沒有任何中國文化和中國人值得拯救。 他們是世界和平與民主的一個明確而現實的威脅。下面的說法是正確的:

北朝鮮的資金很多是中國提供的。
北朝鮮設立了好幾個集中營,跟希特勒的納粹德國完全一樣。 如果與納粹的斗爭是道德的,那么打擊朝鮮以及它的支持者,就是道德的。

中華民國是一個有總統制和普選的多黨民主體制,然而其主權不被其他民主國家承認,原因在于中華人民共和國拒絕與任何承認中華民國的國家建立外交關系,并要求所有與它有外交關系的國家作出聲明,承認臺灣是屬于它的。 其結果是,只有23個國家與中華民國有正式的外交關系。

(此處省去一段對X/Z的胡說八道言論。)

很多工廠都選擇將他們的業務從北美轉移到東南亞,該區域較低的工資標準和可怕的工作條件導致工人常常被迫自殺。

廉價商品涌入西方市場的作用是破壞了當地經濟,我可以保證,除非事情有所改變,否則我們很快也會被迫采用類似的工作條件,以保持競爭力。

中國共CD對世界和平和我們的生活方式是一個明確而現實的威脅。 他們已經證明,他們正在積極擴大其國內外軍事和經濟上的邊界。 如果這一切沒有很快被制止,我們會發現自己只能任由他們的擺布了。 當務之急是立刻采取行動宜早不宜遲。

中國尚未被核武器轟炸過,但為了保證我們的民主和自由文化的生存,這樣做是非常重要的,我們需要當機立斷。

一個現代化的中國只會比納粹德國更壞。



pablo668
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
In before the lock....Wow....just wow.
         
在本帖被鎖定前....留個爪印....只是留個爪印。



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

嘿Bystander,他們真的去找你喝茶了,是吧?



Bystander
Please propose specific criticisms to the above proposal, instead of expressing general incredulity.
If you disagree, state why.
                  
請對上面的建議提出具體的意見,而不是表達一般性的批評。

如果您不同意,請說明原因。



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.
         
真的嗎? 我必須說明為什么在歷史上或現在的任何時候向任何人投放核彈是一個壞主意?

即使傾向于選擇目前現狀?

我很懷疑,因為我不敢相信你是認真的。



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?

我認為我們應該因為我喜歡大爆炸。

我是認真的 - 我們需要通過把別人炸回石器時代以維護我們的民主和自由的文化 – 沒錯,得殺掉數以百萬計的人。



--------------- 以下譯者: yayayaya ---------------
更多國外譯帖歡迎訪問:看世界口碑網  http://www.slyzfk.live/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,我們不應該核爆中國。 否則誰會借錢給我們入侵伊拉克? 有句古老的格言,“生源于自己手握刀劍,死源自他人手握刀劍。”如果我們每次打仗都往別人頭上扔核彈,那自二戰結束以來我們起碼向10個國家扔了核彈,遲早有一天別人也會扔給我們,這將會是個多么噩夢的世界。



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
“對中國使用核武器在最初提出的時候就是合理的,直到今天仍然是合理的。 沒有任何中國文化和中國人值得拯救。 他們是世界和平與民主的一個明確而現實的威脅。”

額滴神,你對世界的理解真讓我惡心..... 我超喜歡中國人。

引用: “中華民國是一個有總統制和普選的多黨民主體制,然而其主權不被其他民主國家承認,原因在于中華人民共和國拒絕與任何承認中華民國的國家建立外交關系,并要求所有與它有外交關系的國家作出聲明,承認臺灣是屬于它的。 其結果是,只有23個國家與中華民國有正式的外交關系。”

不幸的是,一個民主的國家在官方層面必須被忽略,但這并沒有阻止經濟和其他的政府間聯系。

引用: “(譯注:此處為對X.Z的胡說八道部分)”

種族滅絕是正確的字眼? 或許你應該用殖民化。 不過不管怎樣都是不對的,即使中央政府正在那建設基礎設施,但那里的人似乎并不想要這些。

引用: “廉價商品涌入西方市場的作用是破壞了當地經濟,我可以保證,除非事情有所改變,否則我們很快也會被迫采用類似的工作條件,以保持競爭力。”

這也有帶來更多更便宜的消費品的好處。

引用: “中國共CD對世界和平和我們的生活方式是一個明確而現實的威脅。 他們已經證明,他們正在積極擴大其國內外軍事和經濟上的邊界。 如果這一切沒有很快被制止,我們會發現自己只能任由他們的擺布了。 當務之急是立刻采取行動宜早不宜遲。”

是嗎? 他們傾向于把這些限制在自己的國境內,不像其他一些我能想到的國家。

引用: “中國尚未被核武器轟炸過,但為了保證我們的民主和自由文化的生存,這樣做是非常重要的,我們需要當機立斷。
一個現代化的中國只會比納粹德國更壞。”

呃,不,它不是。它有問題,但并沒有進行大屠殺和侵略其他許多土地。



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
“真的嗎? 我必須說明為什么在歷史上或現在的任何時候向任何人投放核彈是一個壞主意? ”

完全同意......是不是有點像“我們應該為了保護波斯尼亞人而向波斯尼亞塞族人投凝固汽油彈?”



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
“沒有,我對中國人民只有深厚,永恒的愛。我鄙視中國政府,還有他們62年來的政策以及對待中國人民的做法。沒有人,我的意思是沒有任何人可以指責我對這個偉大國家的普通民眾懷有不好的感覺。”

但是,如果我們在1950年與中國爆發大規模全面戰爭(如你所說),那么這些同樣的中國人就會受到影響。



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,西方人可能扔核彈,可以殺死印第安人,可以殖民其他國家,但你卻不允許讓我們中國漢族有一些簡單的民族自豪感?是的,我知道共C.D是邪惡的,這也許是你們不喜歡中國人的主要原因。我想你應該明白,中G不能代表中國人民,而且還有很多不喜歡中G的中國人。中國平民也是中G的受害者。

必須很認真的說,支持使用核武器來進行種族滅絕使你看起來比中G更邪惡。



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
“沒有,我對中國人民只有深厚,永恒的愛。我鄙視中國政府,還有他們62年來的政策以及對待中國人民的做法。沒有人,我的意思是沒有任何人可以指責我對這個偉大國家的普通民眾懷有不好的感覺。”

Wenge,你似乎是這里唯一一個對中國和中國人有一個公正意見的人。



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.

美國是否應該使用核武器?不,我們不應該,事后也證明,幸虧我們沒用。



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:
“對中國使用核武器在最初提出的時候就是合理的,直到今天仍然是合理的。 沒有任何中國文化和中國人值得拯救。 他們是世界和平與民主的一個明確而現實的威脅。”

首先讓我重申:對中國的轟炸只能是徒勞的,還可能引發蘇聯對日本和韓國的回擊。杜魯門簽署了核攻擊的命令,但與北約國家的代表會談后,撤銷了該命令。

至于Bystander的瘋狂叫囂:不僅要美國在50年代就核爆中國,還要求現在就用核武器來對他們進行種族滅絕式的轟炸是我聽過的最可笑的事情。我們可以對中國侵略說得最多的是,它的所有威脅就是歷來總被推回到自己的邊境線內。它從來沒有入侵過其它國家,除了破壞房屋來創建一些緩沖區。突厥人在中亞地區的聚居地就是一個很好的例子。在這里,中國漢族人與西藏帝國競爭對中亞的控制和安定。

同中亞一樣,西藏也一直是傳統的漢帝國在不同時期的一部分,盡管它最近又因為他們的入侵和拙劣的同化工作,現在那里出現(至少)一些宗教反抗。現代中國仍然控制著中亞的大部分地區,新疆的突厥人就是其中一個例子。在這里,占人口大部分的穆斯林突厥人強烈地感覺到中國漢族在開采他們的資源,并從他們的傳統土地上賺錢。但是沒有進行種族滅絕,也沒有廣泛的屠殺,而只是對那些在騷亂中隨意進行謀殺的人進行報復性處決,這也是我們許多其他國家在這種情況下會采取的做法。在這里,我可不是說這樣的情況有數以千計,所以我認為,雖然有壓制,但那里沒有有組織的或系統性的徹底滅絕計劃。



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
“為什么我們不越過三八線...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中國長城以內?... 并把它一磚一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一勞永逸地把他們炸回“石器時代”?”

因為那樣的話,美國將會失去對局勢的任何形式的控制,它很可能會升級為導致沒有人能活到今天的全面核戰爭,只剩下蟑螂。冷戰甚至不是一場戰爭,那是一堆人用不同的政治意識形態在給對方找茬,直到俄羅斯終于有了一些領導人決定不成為獨裁者并解散蘇聯。冷戰結束是因為在俄羅斯的人們失去了對共產主義和社會主義的信仰,而不是因為美國的“獲勝”。想象一下,對中國的攻擊會在俄羅斯引起一波反西方情緒并極大程度地長時間延續冷戰。

另外,我不知道為什么你相信200萬人中大部分都在被壓迫。在俄羅斯沒有人把斯大林看成是一個獨裁者。人們承認他有極大的權力,但他們普遍認為他的統治(美國人把他的統治視為死亡的邪惡獨裁!可笑!)對整體是有利的。除非你故意想去推翻政府,否則你一點都不需要害怕,西方媒體過分夸大了在蘇聯的所謂壓迫,其實一般的蘇聯人都喜歡斯大林。

我只是想說,也許那里的200萬人根本不想要自由。看看伊拉克的現狀,在那里我們給他們強推了“自由”。被核爆回石器時代的人們一般都不會得到他們的自由。

冷戰是一場毫無意義的沖突,提升對中國的攻擊程度甚至比第一次世界大戰更沒意義。



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:
最初發布者purakjelia
“所以,西方人可能扔核彈,可以殺死印第安人,可以殖民其他國家,但你卻不允許讓我們中國漢族有一些簡單的民族自豪感?”

大哥你完全錯了。如果你讀回整個帖子你可能會發現這里大多數人并不主張在當時或是現在對中國使用核武器,在這個論壇很多人也許不贊同中國政府的一些做法或者它的對外政策,但我真的不認為他們中有人會不喜歡中國人。

我有很多不同類型的中國朋友,而我愛他們所有人。



Belloc
From: USA
Simple answer - no. Great way to start WWIII if we did.
         
簡單的答案-不應該。如果我們做了,那就是第三次世界大戰的閃亮登場。



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:
最初發布者purakjelia
“所以,西方人可能扔核彈,可以殺死印第安人,可以殖民其他國家,但你卻不允許讓我們中國漢族有一些簡單的民族自豪感?是的,我知道共C.D是邪惡的,這也許是你們不喜歡中國人的主要原因。我想你應該明白,中G不能代表中國人民,而且還有很多不喜歡中G的中國人。中國平民也是中G的受害者。必須很認真的說,支持使用核武器來進行種族滅絕使你看起來比中G更邪惡。”

不要太認真了purakjelia,很多人的生活,關系或情感很空虛因此我們看到了這類帖子,旨在引起人們的一些回應而已。通過指責他國來尋求自己國家在他國身上獲取利益顯示了人們對地緣政治的一個基本了解。轟炸任何人都是不人道的,哪怕是對某種威脅例如朝鮮或伊朗。國際關系中的藝術是拋棄差異,專注于兩個國家的共同利益。



bil73
no the damage to the enviroment would have been catastrophic
         
不應該。那樣做對環境的損害將是災難性的



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
“核轟炸他們不是個辦法,那樣必然會引發全世界的全面戰爭。不過或許這能令我們提早結束與蘇聯和紅色中國的冷戰,今天就會有將近20億更自由的人在世界上生活。但也可能相反!誰知道呢?”

在當今世界,兩個有著十億更自由人民的超級大國仍然是一對巨大的競爭對手,無論是軍事還是經濟上。

從世界霸權的角度來看,這沒有太大的區別。在另一方面,你的純軍事的說法是非常合情合理的。如果要摧毀一個國家,最好是在他們沒有任何機會反擊的時候。不管好壞,這種可能性始終是存在的,即使只是代理人戰爭。



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
“冷戰甚至不是一場戰爭。”

這是許多戰爭...... 韓國,越南,阿富汗........還有其他。



rehabnonono
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Yes, the cold war saw to it that the world enjoyed not a minute's peace.
         
是的,透過冷戰我們可以看到,這個世界并不享受哪怕一分鐘的和平。



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

這當然是一個誘人的前景。根據馬克斯-黑廷斯寫的關于朝鮮戰爭的書,最終休戰的其中一個因素是美軍能在戰術層面使用的核大炮的發展。我的答案是,如果聯合國部隊面臨慘敗的話,核武器的使用肯定就會合理。如果敵人在1953年沒有做好接受談判的準備,那么,也許,你懂的。
不過應該進行投票表決。



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?
         
樓上的,你一定是在開玩笑。我想說,這玩笑開大了。

哪一點讓你覺得這基本上就是一次相互毀滅的結論需要在這里再爭議一下?



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 “哪一點讓你覺得這基本上就是一次相互毀滅的結論需要在這里再爭議一下? ”

因為中國當時沒有原子彈,而蘇聯的核武庫太小,且幾乎沒有運載工具,還有斯大林是不會為朝鮮去冒毀滅性的風險 。



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
“因為中國當時沒有原子彈,而蘇聯的核武庫太小,且幾乎沒有運載工具,還有斯大林是不會為朝鮮去冒毀滅性的風險 。”

杜魯門先生顯然不是這樣想,蘇聯不可避免地會考慮對任何受到如此明顯的直接威脅的盟友使用核武器。更不用說是在美國盟友的土地上使用。

我可以告訴大家,漂亮的循環邏輯是不言而喻的,我必須完全同意杜魯門先生。夸張一點說,有一顆核彈就等于有許多核彈。特別是當你不知道對方有多少核彈的時候。這個理論在廣島和長崎的人們身上得到充分的證實。



--------------- 以下譯者: 東漸 ---------------
更多國外譯帖歡迎訪問:看世界口碑網  http://www.slyzfk.live/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:
“這當然是一個誘人的前景。根據馬克斯-黑廷斯寫的關于朝鮮戰爭的書,最終休戰的其中一個因素是美軍能在戰術層面使用的核大炮的發展。我的答案是,如果聯合國部隊面臨慘敗的話,核武器的使用肯定就會合理。如果敵人在1953年沒有做好接受談判的準備,那么,也許,你懂的。”

核大炮!因為蘇聯沒有發展出投送系統?當然,蘇聯不可能出動轟炸機到首爾或者東京,把麥克阿瑟炸到上帝那... 不過這也是遲早的事?50年代末他們擁有比任何人都要好的火箭。

是北約國家說服杜魯門,攻擊中國是愚蠢的行為,因為他們擔心美國會被拖入一個與中國長期的戰爭中,以致沒有儲備給北約來應對蘇聯對歐洲的入侵。對西方來說,與中國戰爭是無益和昂貴的。



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!因為蘇聯沒有發展出投送系統?當然,蘇聯不可能出動轟炸機到首爾或者東京,把麥克阿瑟炸到上帝那... 不過這也是遲早的事?50年代末他們擁有比任何人都要好的火箭。”

不要緊,蘇聯人50年代末才有而韓戰1953年就結束了。此外,聯合國軍有壓倒性的空中優勢,因此他們能否空投原子彈是值得懷疑的,而且幾乎可以肯定他們不會這樣做,看回他們當年在古巴的退讓就知道了。美國1953年5月試射了名為“誠實的約翰”的原子炮,能夠通過戰術而非戰略的方式在敵人的防線上炸開一條大路,使聯合國部隊可以以最小的損失找到進入朝鮮的方式。



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
“核攻擊命令是由杜魯門簽署的,但它被視為對付地面集結部隊好看不中用。 它也許對中國的供應基地能起作用... 然而,這會引發蘇聯轟炸機開始對日本進行攻擊。”

這是被那些認為麥克阿瑟是正確的人往往錯過一點。中國人有沒受到聯合國軍攻擊的基地....同時,聯合國軍在日本的基地也同樣沒受到干擾。



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.
         
當然,(核爆中國)這會殺死數百萬的人,但它不會產生任何戰略利益。軍隊從來就不會集中起來讓敵軍用核武器來轟炸。蘇聯也會用自己的核武器來報復。美國,作為一個始終反對政府間戰爭的國家,一旦被見證了近五十多年沒完沒了戰爭的中國當成是這場悲劇的墊背,那時他們會哭到死。



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:
“軍隊從來就不會集中起來讓敵軍用核武器來轟炸。蘇聯也會用自己的核武器來報復。”

不不,中國人在停火期間構筑了大型連貫式的掩體,以打退聯合國軍對他們的任何攻擊。“誠實的約翰”(核大炮)是用來炸開一條前進的道路。我很懷疑斯大林和赫魯曉夫會為幾千名中國人和有限地區(15平方公里)的毀滅而去冒核戰的風險。



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:
“聯合國軍有壓倒性的空中優勢,因此他們能否空投原子彈是值得懷疑的,而且幾乎可以肯定他們不會這樣做,看回他們當年在古巴的退讓就知道了。”

完全確信蘇聯不會報復? 你敢用你的生命打賭嗎?古巴導彈危機期間的讓步不是一個有效的參照,那是在美國的勢力范圍內。朝鮮戰爭是靠近蘇聯的邊界,對于他們有重大的國家利益。你的那些想法簡直瘋了,趕緊扔掉~

我們必須消除所有核武器,在它們被....



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

我相信,中國不會允許朝鮮發動一場大戰。



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
“完全確信蘇聯不會報復? 你敢用你的生命打賭嗎?”

但是力量的平衡是一樣的,美國明顯在各方面都有優勢。另外朝鮮與中國接壤,它到蘇聯還有很長的一段路。



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.
         
我不知道我們是否應該在朝鮮戰場上使用核武器,但我很傷心我們沒有解放整個半島。不幸的是, 除了發動第三次世界大戰,我們對中國完全沒轍。



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.

只是瞄過一眼核大炮,我敢肯定麥克阿瑟一定會想使用。炮彈的當量并不算很大,約100-150噸TNT炸藥。但與其他同樣大小的裝置比,仍然是相當令人印象深刻的。但不知道對敵人的坑道效果如何。我覺得被很多人忽略掉的一點是核塵埃/污染。兩個超級大國,還有其他擁有核的國家進行核試驗的時候,都有軍人或是站著觀察或是在爆炸后不久就進入試驗區。最終的結果是,這些軍人后來大量的死掉了。我不確定大概是多長時間,很多年后,一些軍人得了癌癥。

與使用了多少這些彈藥相聯系,你最終會得到相當多核塵埃/污染。這還將取決于爆炸云的高度,此區域有自西向東的高空急流,即便沒有,每年的季風也會把大量灰塵從中國/蒙古沙漠吹到日本,我認為,這只需一個月時間。所以,使用這些武器還有一個結果就是很有可能會對該地區造成大面積污染。

這甚至比考慮什么中蘇反應更重要。



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樣的,美國明顯在各方面都有優勢。另外朝鮮與中國接壤,它到蘇聯還有很長的一段路。”

事實上,俄羅斯既和中國,也和朝鮮接壤。他們與朝鮮邊境沿圖們江望上約有10公里長。



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
“我不知道我們是否應該在朝鮮戰場上使用核武器,但我很傷心我們沒有解放整個半島。不幸的是, 除了發動第三次世界大戰,我們對中國完全沒轍。”

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.
         
我記得當時讀到,杜魯門授權轟炸連接朝鮮和中國的一座橋梁。不過,他下令炸彈只針對接近朝鮮的一部分橋。問題是,那個時代的炸彈在最好的條件下還是不準確的,并且該地區的風相當大,即使在今天,擊中他們也不會是一件容易的事。



Umpire
Carpet bombing with normal bombs would surely have been sufficient to get the job done.
         
用普通炸彈進行地毯式轟炸足以完成這項工作。



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

關于杜魯門的核決策的一些相關信息:

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寫到:“但是力量的平衡是一樣的,美國明顯在各方面都有優勢。另外朝鮮與中國接壤,它到蘇聯還有很長的一段路。”

很長的路?你指投彈的路是吧?那玩意只需要有一個就能把在東京的麥克阿瑟夫人的洗衣機炸上天。爭論這個是沒有意義的,反正在核互炸中不會有贏家。

回蘇聯的路?你確定嗎?朝鮮到蘇聯/俄羅斯邊境有很長的路要走?哥上次就去過滿洲,我可以發誓,中國和俄羅斯之間的河流也是朝鮮和俄羅斯的邊界。事實上...我確定它是。也許沿著河流往上或往下一點,但它就在那。

你肯定是指從莫斯科出發要走很長的路對不?好吧,從華盛頓出發到夏威夷也夠遠的。



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.


鴨綠江上中國丹東一側的橋梁在沖突中被成功炸毀。順便說一句,在中國,韓戰(中國稱為“抗美援朝戰爭”)被作為對抗強大敵人的一次偉大的勝利。而北朝鮮首先越過三八線的這一事實卻從未被提及。

中國人對他們的盟友朝鮮很無奈,兩者之間有許多問題,兩個不同版本的社會主義之間的差距也越來越大。中國人不對朝鮮人說“去你丫的”的唯一原因是他們擔心美國的影響力如此接近他們的邊界,他們還擔心朝鮮政權崩潰后會有大量的難民越過邊境。中國對韓國的承認清晰地表明,中朝之間不再像曾經那樣親密。這顯然令朝鮮很不愉快。

中國政府的政策,雖然不討所有人的喜歡,已在中國建立了一個不斷壯大的中產階級。至于中國人,他們跟西方人并沒有什么不同。他們希望跟其他人一樣在安全的環境下過上好的生活。

好人和壞人哪都有,中國也不例外。但我與新疆來的音樂家一起工作過,我知道他們真的討厭中國漢族人的一些原因,其中包括無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.

我感到驚訝的是,有些人看不到大局,甚至在聽了杜魯門的講話,宣布他已解雇了麥克阿瑟并對時局進行了解釋。在1949年,鐵托與莫斯科分裂,柏林的封鎖也已經發生了。斯大林開始重新武裝華約國家,南斯拉夫成為斯大林入侵名單里的下一個。(西方知道這一點)。蘇聯沒有足夠的能力打到美國,但他們絕對有能力蹂躪西德,或者轟炸美國在歐洲的資產,特別是在英國的,這就是為什么美國在1950年初要租借給英國70架B- 29轟炸機。蘇聯之前只是提供少數蘇聯飛行員秘密援助朝鮮,對中國的攻擊幾乎肯定會帶來蘇聯更高層次的援助(或至少是更多的“志愿者” ),從而擴大戰爭。美國的基地和海軍船只就會成為這一公平游戲的目標。



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:
“我感到驚訝的是,有些人看不到大局,甚至在聽了杜魯門的講話,宣布他已解雇了麥克阿瑟并對時局進行了解釋。”

同意,實際上是歐洲的北約成員說服了杜魯門不要和中國人扳手腕。他們知道一旦致力于與中國的全面戰爭,可以用來阻止蘇聯侵入西德的資源就會更少。他們還擔心歐洲會成為蘇聯的武器實驗場。因此,有許多很好的理由不要轟炸中國。



botully
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Count me in as well. Widening the war would have been a grave mistake.
         
算我一個。擴大戰爭將是一個嚴重的錯誤。



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
“美國應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國扔原子彈嗎?就我個人而言,我認為如果使用核武器,那我們就會冒與蘇聯發生更大規模戰爭的風險,如果完全摧毀掉一大批中國的城市我們就不會再有道德制高點。所以我們依然應該用普通轟炸方式而不是核武器。”

雖然報紙上說中國的核武器只有16枚,但中國遠不止這么點,據保守估計,他們有數千件的核武器。早些年,中國十分落后,但這沒有什么......中國的計算家們甚至使用原始的算盤和人腦來“計算”原子彈和氫彈的方程式。這是非常艱難的,然而它成功了。你完全不能忽視中國的力量,你也不可能操縱中國。即使你沒說,但你似乎是一個民族主義者。



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
“雖然報紙上說中國的核武器只有16枚,但中國遠不止這么點,據保守估計,他們有數千件的核武器。”

這個話題講的是朝鮮戰爭的時候,那時中國還沒有核武器。中國早期的大部分武器都是蘇聯給的。他們只是為武器制造提供點基礎性工作。



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
“這個話題講的是朝鮮戰爭的時候,那時中國還沒有核武器。中國早期的大部分武器都是蘇聯給的。他們只是為武器制造提供點基礎性工作。”

為什么中國要把核武器交給別人?
你這話完全沒有理由和意義。 核武器是中國的財富。它屬于所有的中國人。

(譯注:這位來自lanzhou的哥們估計是把Most of the credit for China's early weapons should be given to The soviets.這句理解成中國的武器應該交給蘇聯了。。=.=!)



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
“為什么中國要把核武器交給別人?你這話完全沒有理由和意義。”

沒有人說中國應該把武器交給別人。
這里是談韓戰期間關于中國的話題。然后你跟我們說,中國現在強大了。

在我看來,如果美國使用核武器對付中國,那中國和韓國都將在接踵而至的美蘇之間的戰爭中被摧毀或者說不再適宜居住。中國能夠將聯合國軍打癱,但他們不可能頂得住美國以及聯合國軍傾盡全力的打擊。只有在蘇聯的幫助下他們才有可能幸存,但這受如此破壞的3個國家中幸存也是悲慘的,天知道他們要如何重建家園。

正如上面已經指出的蘇聯人無法把武器投送到美國,但他們對歐洲卻有壓倒性力量。這將導致一場世界大戰,沒有國家會幸免。



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
“核武器是中國的財富。它屬于所有的中國人。”

核武器可不是中國的財富,而且武器也不屬于人民。在每一個國家它都屬于政府,人民對它是沒有控制權的。中國的財富是她的人民,很遺憾政府并沒有意識到這一點。



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
“這將導致一場世界大戰,沒有國家會幸免。”

還記得毛澤東的話:“不招惹別人,不… (譯注:這句啥意思?),就不會有戰爭。”
你可以思考一下這句話。



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
“中國的財富是她的人民,很遺憾政府并沒有意識到這一點。”

請仔細研究《孫子兵法》(世界上第一本軍事策略著作),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
“請仔細研究《孫子兵法》(世界上第一本軍事策略著作)”

我已經仔細研究過它。我堅持我的看法,毀滅敵人的能力不是一個國家的財富,而是損害。我重申,中國的財富僅僅是它的人民。



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.

為什么中國要去毀滅別人?請給我一個理由。
我恐怕你說不出什么理由,Wenge. 有也是虛假的。

這是中國人民的意愿,跟政府無關。即使沒有政府,中國人民也將擁有核武器。



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
“為什么中國要去毀滅別人?請給我一個理由。”

我覺得有一個語言問題在這里。你可能沒讀懂上面的帖子。



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.


美國確實已經“核爆”過了朝鮮。有趣的是,美國“核爆”了朝鮮但卻沒有任何人真正指責過他們。我猜從來沒有人思考過西方人犯下的這些罪行。

美國向朝鮮投下了800噸的炸彈,超過整個太平洋戰爭期間,完全不管所轟炸的目標是什么。美國根本不在乎轟炸的是平民還是軍事目標(仁川之后朝鮮軍隊實際上已經殘廢)。朝鮮被完全夷為平地。就因為朝鮮今天是一個如此糟糕的國家,我們似乎就覺得這是他們應得的(實際上在當時,北朝鮮遠比南朝鮮好,即使在人權方面),而我們甚至不認為美國在這場戰爭中做錯了什么。

美國對朝鮮的轟炸所造成的傷害遠超“核爆”,例如平壤。因此,美國實際上是已經“核爆”過了朝鮮。



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

馬修丠奇微后來在戰場上獲得的勝利,讓麥克阿瑟所有對中國大陸進行核打擊的論據變得蒼白無力。



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
“羅德尼丹澤菲爾德(譯注:美國著名喜劇演員)在《回到學校》這部電影里非常好地表達過那代人的這樣的情緒:為什么我們不越過三八線...把那些吃大米的家伙推回到中國長城以內?... 并把它一磚一瓦地拆掉...然后用核武器一勞永逸地把他們炸回“石器時代”?”

打一場全面戰爭,共產黨人得到的第一個好處就是擁有了對麥克阿瑟特權庇護下的日本進行空襲和任何從內部顛覆他們的自由。打一場全面戰爭,對目標是占領全中國來說,韓國是一個糟糕的后勤基地。它太小了,無法作為在滿洲進行的大型戰役的后勤支撐基礎,更別說再往南打。打一場全面戰爭,美國也將面臨著北約和蘇聯政權在歐洲不可避免的戰爭,相比之下亞洲的戰爭只是一個小插曲。麥克阿瑟本人回避了所有這些有關歐洲問題的戰略討論,因此這些可以告訴你他的戰略“智慧”到底值幾毛錢。

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
“這當然是一個誘人的前景。根據馬克斯-黑廷斯寫的關于朝鮮戰爭的書,最終休戰的其中一個因素是美軍能在戰術層面使用的核大炮的發展。我的答案是,如果聯合國部隊面臨慘敗的話,核武器的使用肯定就會合理。如果敵人在1953年沒有做好接受談判的準備,那么,也許,你懂的。”

我讀過黑廷斯的書,你說的可不是停戰考慮的一個因素。黑廷斯確實認為,美國在這場戰爭中比以往任何戰爭都更樂意使用核彈,但他認為這是美國和聯合國軍的戰爭努力的一個非常危險的不平衡兆頭。我要告訴你的是第101圓桌會議達成的觀點是,李奇微的勝利顯示1950年的災難完全是麥克阿瑟自己造成的。抱歉,個人的失敗不能成為引發一場世界大戰的前奏。

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
“因為中國當時沒有原子彈,而蘇聯的核武庫太小,且幾乎沒有運載工具,還有斯大林是不會為朝鮮去冒毀滅性的風險 。”

美國的核武庫在當時也遠比人們以為的小。熱核武器在二戰結束后才開始被使用,美國甚至沒有在城市戰役中能夠使用的最佳核彈。相互投核彈的結果是沒有贏家,但蘇聯決定在歐洲打一場常規戰爭以回應美國在亞洲發起全面戰爭的決定,這也是麥克阿瑟被告知他會危及美國的戰略重點的原因之一,他確實危及了。

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
“美國1953年5月試射了名為“誠實的約翰”的原子炮,能夠通過戰術而非戰略的方式在敵人的防線上炸開一條大路,使聯合國部隊可以以最小的損失找到進入朝鮮的方式。”

如果聯合國軍決定在一個雙方實力都得到加強的時間段再次前進,忽視任何側翼可能再次遭到反擊的潛在跡象,他們會像之前那樣再次被揍。1950年的失敗就是麥克阿瑟唯我獨尊的自大和他對無視實際情況的結果。

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樣的,美國明顯在各方面都有優勢。另外朝鮮與中國接壤,它到蘇聯還有很長的一段路。”

哥們沒事多看看地圖撒。



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
所有麥克阿瑟的論點對中國大陸的核打擊在戰場上是無效由馬修丠奇微的勝利。

這直到麥克阿瑟死也沒能使他停止嚷嚷他是正確的。對朝鮮的極度常規轟炸,正如你說的,李奇微的這戰術讓任何在半島使用核武的論據變得沒有意義。然而,李奇微也要求準備好核武器,以防中國軍隊對韓國的又一次大規模攻擊。參謀長聯席會議也考慮這樣做。同時,按照李奇微的要求和蘇聯約200架轟炸機進入了滿洲的相關報道,幾架MK-4轟炸機也被派往了沖繩,但它們身上裂變膠囊(核武)一直沒有安裝。

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.

這問題是由一個相當隱晦的事實造成的,那就是盡管總統保留了最大的權力,但美國當時仍在致力于制定一個關于誰來掌控核武器的條例,以及如何讓文職人員來控制其軍事用途的具體程序。這里的問題是,麥克阿瑟和華盛頓的一些高級將領認為他們應該有全權控制使用該炸彈。它使得危險一度如此的接近。看起來好像事情可能從程序的裂縫中冒出來,然后到位。1950年的八月,麥克阿瑟幾乎要得手了,但從位于現在加利福尼亞州的特拉維斯空軍基地開往關島的攜帶著核彈的飛機起飛幾分鐘后墜毀了。后來發現核彈沒有裝上那架飛機,它是由第二架飛機攜帶。

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.


我很難說這枚核彈的計劃是怎樣,但我不認為麥克阿瑟將在中國使用它。還有一種觀點就是認為他可能一直想在北朝鮮使用戰術核武器,在那個時候,他的部隊被擠壓進了釜山防御圈, MK-4的使用可以讓他們的收益從1調整為31萬噸,因此它可以在戰術應用中使用。



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?

如果鞋是在另一只腳(譯注:即換位思考),對于一場在美國自己邊界上開打的戰爭,很難想象美國不會像中國那樣以同樣的方式應對(介入)........ 那么在這種情況下美國被敵人核爆也是正確的嘍?



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.

回復:我們應該在朝鮮戰爭中向中國投原子彈嗎?

我看不到在那段時間,擁有核能力的超級大國在不是核報復的情況下動用核武,其他國家會不進行抗議。它也將會引發不僅是軍備競賽,而且是核武交易到每一個感覺到超級大國威脅的國家手上。那將會是一個非常可怕的時代。

因此,我認為使用核武器絕對不會是個好主意.



--------------- 以下譯者: yayayaya ---------------
更多國外譯帖歡迎訪問:看世界口碑網  http://www.slyzfk.live/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.
         
麥克阿瑟從來沒有承認任何錯誤,所以他拒絕承認發動一場核大戰是掩蓋他自身失敗的借口也不過是他的本性而已。從我對他在1950年的實際意圖的了解(而不是他在他的回憶錄里聲稱那啥),對中國城市進行大規模的飽和核打擊,就像之前對日本和德國那樣,只是這次用的是核武器,隨后便可以大踏步進入中國。這是他慣用的發動一個更大規模的瘋狂來解決他的上一個失敗的瘋狂的手法。



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
“如果鞋是在另一只腳,對于一場在美國自己邊界上開打的戰爭,很難想象美國不會像中國那樣以同樣的方式應對(介入)........ 那么在這種情況下美國被敵人核爆也是正確的嘍?”

哥們,這個問題有點代入性哈。考慮到與鄰居的共同防御協定和條約,情況是不一樣的。雖然這些協議經常被改來改去的,但那些在二戰中得到實行的肯定是有效的。與加拿大,與英國的協議也將適用。如果不是我們的鄰居發生的沖突,這些防御條約就不適用了。如果沒有協議,那么美國就會根據自己的利益來采取行動,算是兩害取其輕吧,可以這么說。這種情況下,美國就會像中國那樣不得不做出進行抗戰的決策。順便問一句,中國和北朝鮮之間有過什么共同防御的條約嗎?

如果1950年的鞋子在另一只腳上,那么誰會使用核武?如果所有的事情保持不變,在美國對蘇聯有著近8比1的優勢下,我懷疑會是他們。但是,我敢說幾乎所有主要軍事機構都會跟麥克阿瑟一樣認為自己有權使用核武器,如果他們有核武的話。我敢肯定俄國人會是這樣。而這樣的心態需要有政治領導人來抑制。顯然,這是必須的。

(小編:這哥們答非所問,忽悠能力不是一般的強哈^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
“這是他慣用的發動一個更大規模的瘋狂來解決他的上一個失敗的瘋狂的手法。”

據報道說,他還想用約30枚核彈來封鎖住滿洲的“咽喉”,由此制造出一片鈷輻射地帶以確保中國至少60年無法進入韓國。下面是信息來源:http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html, 姑且當小道消息看吧,它從未被公開引用發表,直到1964年采訪了麥克阿瑟。最下面有作者信息,但我還沒有從其他任何來源得到印證。我對麥克阿瑟沒有好感,但我也不會抹黑他,如果他實際上沒有說這樣的話。

我還在尋找答案。讓我疑惑的是鈷的事情,美國的核武庫里沒有鈷炸彈。一種被稱為“咸魚炸彈”的武器在1950年進行了測試,但宣布失敗了。其他有關鈷的工作都未能繼續,直到朝鮮戰爭之后,并最終決定不生產鈷武器。這是完全有可能是麥克阿瑟寫辯護書的時候填油加醋般加上去的。我把信息來源貼在這里供參考,也許有人可以比我更快找到確認。

(譯注:take sth. with a grain of salt 這個習語的字面意思是“和一撮鹽一起吃下去”,為什么要與鹽一起吃呢?據說這個習語要追溯到羅馬時代,羅馬將軍龐培曾發現一種解毒劑,必須和著一小把鹽才服得下去。解毒劑難咽,加了鹽也許好咽些,于是這句習語用于描述對一些不靠譜的,值得懷疑的東西,得“和著鹽”才能勉強接受。現在,對某件事情或某人說的話有所保留,將信將疑,持懷疑態度,就可以說take it with a grain of salt. 英文注釋是: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.
         
我想沒有人能阻止中國的戰略。中國人很聰明,勇敢。朝鮮戰爭的結果是顯而易見的,它始于鴨綠江,在三八線結束。誰是贏家?這是顯而易見的。
世界民族主義不可能用任何借口威脅到中國。哪怕是核武器,如果美國想用核武器來摧毀中國的話。
我相信中國人比猶太人更優秀。



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:
最初發布者fruitcat
“我想沒有人能阻止中國的戰略。中國人很聰明,勇敢。朝鮮戰爭的結果是顯而易見的,它始于鴨綠江,在三八線結束。誰是贏家?這是顯而易見的。”

馬修丠奇微不僅成功地阻止它,還用超強的火力和良好的機動性來扭轉了戰局。



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:
最初發布者fruitcat
“我想沒有人能阻止中國的戰略。中國人很聰明,勇敢。”

聰明沒錯。勇敢嘛,我聽到過另一種觀點。



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:
最初發布者fruitcat
“我相信中國人比猶太人更優秀。”

呃... 誰說的?



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
“聰明沒錯。勇敢嘛,我聽到過另一種觀點。”

中國為了韜光養晦.中國不想跟任何國家打仗,即使是俄羅斯。
這就是智慧。 韜光養晦,這是一種大智慧。
但中國的忍耐不等于是讓其他國家來挑釁中國。
真正的劍是不會輕易拔出來殺人的。



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
“朝鮮戰爭的結果是顯而易見的,它開始在鴨綠江,在三八線結束。 誰是贏家? 這是顯而易見的。我相信中國人比猶太人更優秀。”

戰爭是從三八線開始的。 還有猶太人跟中國人或者這個帖子有半毛錢關系?



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
Chinese are more smarter than jews.

中國人比猶太人更聰明。



Vladimir1984
From: Siberia, deep in taiga
It is obvious Jews are smarter than some people in this thread.
         
顯而易見的是猶太人比這帖子里的一些人更聰明。



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
“中國人比猶太人更聰明。”

你不能證明中國人比猶太人聰明跟這帖子有毛關系。



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
“你不能證明中國人比猶太人聰明跟這帖子有毛關系。”

如果美國大學的錄取比例沒有限制亞裔美國人,恐怕伯克利或哈佛大學里超過一半的學生是中國人。中國人是聰明的,這毫無疑問。
中國人在美國的比例不到兩成,但是在美國有許多中國人獲得諾貝爾獎。不僅如此,中國人在美國的許多活動中都充當重要的角色,他們比猶太人更聰明。



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
“顯而易見的是猶太人比這帖子里的一些人更聰明。”

是的,就像這里有些人總喜歡指責別人。



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
“中國人在美國的比例不到兩成,但是在美國有許多中國人獲得諾貝爾獎。”

沒有中國人在美國獲得過諾貝爾獎,在美國獲得諾貝爾獎的都是美國人,不管他們的種族是什么。



fruitcat
From: lanzhou
China invented the Zhouyi, Westerners used binary system ( based on zhouyi).
         
中國發明了周易,西方人使用二進制系統(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?

整個世界發明了許多東西,有些國家采用了那些東西并使它們變得更好。 中國人并不比任何人聰明,還有,中國人在過去的400年間有發明過什么東西嗎?



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
“沒有中國人在美國獲得過諾貝爾獎,在美國獲得諾貝爾獎的都是美國人,不管他們的種族是什么。”

史蒂芬朱。 美國能源部。他是一個中國人,他是諾貝爾獎所有者。
這樣的中國科學家的例子有很多。

楊振寧(1922)教授。 出生于安徽,1942年進入西南聯合大學物理系,1944年畢業于西南聯合大學, 1945年到美國留學,在芝加哥大學讀博士,曾擔任芝加哥大學的講師,普林斯頓大學研究所研究員,紐約州立大學石溪分校教授和物理研究所所長,英國皇家學會科學院高級研究員,中國外交院院士。 與李政道合作,一起榮獲1957年諾貝爾物理學獎。 對粒子物理學做出了很多開創性的貢獻。

李政道,1926年出生于江蘇省上海,哥倫比亞大學教授,美國華人物理學家,諾貝爾物理學獎得主,因為相對論重離子碰撞(RHIC)物理,和非拓樸孤立子著名理論領域的貢獻。 …. (全是專業內容,翻得太累了)  李政道和楊振寧是最早獲得諾貝爾獎的中國人。

丘成桐,一位數學國際大師,中國著名數學家,廣東廣東蕉嶺人,出生在汕頭,哈佛大學教授,美國科學院院士,中國科學院國外院士。 擁有菲爾茲獎,沃爾夫獎,克拉福德獎三大獎項。在他的導師陳省身之后,是獲得沃爾夫數學獎的第二個中國人。 他證明了卡拉比猜想,卡拉比,用他的名字命名,是弦理論物理學中的基本概念,并為微分幾何和數學物理的發展做出重要貢獻。

丁肇中(1936年1月27日 - ),出生于1936年,美國實驗物理學家。 漢族,祖籍山東省日照市,華裔美國人,目前是美國麻省理工學院教授,曾榮獲1976年諾貝爾物理學獎。 他發現了一個新的物理學基本粒子,用拉丁字母“J” 來表示的電磁流量,將被命名為“J粒子的新粒子。

陶哲軒,1975年7月15日,陶哲軒出生在澳大利亞的阿德萊德,是家中的長子。 現任教于美國加州大學洛杉磯分校數學分校(UCLA),1982年繼丘成桐獲得最高榮譽“數學領域獎”后的第二個中國人。 1996年取得普林斯頓大學博士學位,任教于加州大學洛杉磯分校,24歲的時候,他被任命為加州大學洛杉磯分校教授。

他們中有些人擁有中國護照 。 有些人的祖先是土生土長的中國人。



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
“中國人并不比任何人聰明,還有,中國人在過去的400年間有發明過什么東西嗎?”

在公元1600年。
李時珍的“本草綱目”,宋應星的“天工開物”,徐光啟的“農”,方以智的“物理”。 “徐霞客游記”等著作,現在是我們學習研究古代技術和借鑒的寶貴文獻。于謙在那個時候寫的 “永煤”詩歌,說明煤炭已被廣泛應用。 “園冶”是景觀建筑作品。 明代軍事科技發達,明代后期已經有槍,和強大的火炮。 有一個名為萬的人,坐在綁有火藥棒的椅子上,試圖利用火藥的推力來飛上天,但失敗了,是世界上第一個探索太空的人。白猿在14世紀中期提供的132副圖像(作者不詳),與天氣變化緊密聯系,現代氣象學的絕大多數原則是一致的。 (歐洲到1879年才出版了僅16個云。)南京北京的渾天儀(1900年被八國聯軍德國軍隊運到南京的紫金山天文臺)。北京天文臺建于1446年(位于北京古觀象臺西南側)1617張協狀元“東西洋考每月”氣候和海洋數據的記錄。 1634正式安裝了中國第一望遠鏡。數學物理:1450年,武荊珠算法大全朱<比類九章>,1584(余)出版在1592年鄭大為<在>算法; 最早記載使用珠算方法計算平方米和立方米,1606年利瑪竇與徐光啟開始的<幾何形狀;> 1613年李之藻按照西方人克拉魏斯<實用算術>和中國<算法大位;童宗編譯> <同文算指> 1637年,宋應星在“聲音”天然氣及天然氣聲音的產生和科學解釋的傳播,他認為聲音是由振動或空氣的快速運動產生的影響,聲音穿過空氣與水相似。 方以智在“一般”呈現在物理卷中:“周(時間)輪俞渝(空格),然后宇在宇宙中。

(譯注:這段太專業,不知道作者從哪復制粘貼過來的,隨意用翻譯器翻下,大概知道個意思就是了)



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。 說一個民族比另一個民族更聰明是非常荒謬的。 其他民族一樣可以羅列出很多這樣的成就。 我認識在都柏林猶太社區的一些成員和他們中的一些非常聰明的人,我知道他們也是非常優秀的。



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
“我認識在都柏林猶太社區的一些成員和他們中的一些非常聰明的人,我知道他們也是非常優秀的。 ”

親愛的朋友, 猶太人對錢的熱衷超越對人的素質。
猶太人可以不擇手段的賺錢。
你可以見到外形優雅的猶太人。但猶太人沒有固定的國家,所以猶太人沒有愛國情感可言。
綜合上述,中國人是不會做這樣的事 的。
猶太人的外表下是一個拜金的,詭計多端的性格。他們把聰明用在財產上,而不是像中國人那樣用智慧和勤勞的品質來贏得尊重。



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。 美國能源部。他是一個中國人,他是諾貝爾獎所有者。 這樣的中國科學家的例子有很多。 ”

大多數成為美國人后獲得諾貝爾獎的華人如果一直呆在中國,很可能永遠沒可能獲獎。 中國無法讓他們能有如此的成就。 其中一些人不得不放棄自己的國家,以使他們有機會做他們能做的工作。

大多數你提到的人都是從血統上說是中國人而已。 他們贏獎的時候可都是美國人。 血統是不重要的,重要的是他們的公民身份。



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.
         
請不要侮辱中國人的家庭,中國人對祖先很尊重,即使歷經數百年,也會回家祭拜祖先。
你錯了。 他們的心是中國的,而不是美國的。
他們有美國護照就等于是美國人? 恐怕這只是你的愿望。
我恐怕諾貝爾獎獲得者丁肇中說的話是中文,而不是美國英語。



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


我沒有侮辱任何人。我們間沒有什么更多需要討論的了。 中國把他們唯一獲得過和平/獎的人關在監獄。 他們的文學獲獎者無法在自己的國家發表作品,他不得不放棄中國才能讓自己的聲音被聽到。
丁肇中是美國物理學家,與伯頓里克特一起因發現了亞原子J /ψ粒子而獲得1976年的諾貝爾獎。 他是一個于2011年5月19日安裝在國際空間站的15億阿爾法磁譜儀的主要研發者。 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:文閣
“我沒有侮辱任何人。我們間沒有什么更多需要討論的了。 中國把他們唯一獲得過和平/獎的人關在監獄。 他們的文學獲獎者無法在自己的國家發表作品,他不得不放棄中國才能讓自己的聲音被聽到。”

中國人是優秀的,但中國不是你的親屬,所以你不能干涉別人的私生活。 你不是世界警察。
你沒有反對或排擠中國人的能力. 為什么不選擇另一條道路? 你想解放全人類?



Avon (管理員)

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.


親愛的fruitcat,

請不要把您的時間用于在論壇上被封號后用其他帳號重新出來故意噴這種不明智的垃圾言論,以期激怒其他會員。 您這樣只能是會再次被封號。

現在,這只貓被清出去了,是時候把這個帖子關閉了。

帖子到此關閉。

(小編:這位來自蘭州的熱血,愛國,但卻不太懂得如何與外國網民交流的年輕人fruitcat最終因自己的不禮貌以及對猶太人的偏見而被封號了 (貌似還不是第一次)。。希望廣大有志于在互聯網上為祖國說話的愛國筒子們吸取教訓,尊重他人,文明交流,這樣才能為國爭光哦!)

更多
評論加載中。。。
我還要發表看法:
"看世界"溫馨提醒:
1、請勿發表違反國家法律評論,評論請文明用語;
2、禁止發布廣告評論。
匿名發表  用戶名: 密碼: 驗證碼:

瀏覽過本頁的網友還關注:
加拿大譯帖 - 熱門推薦
第一贊助商
雙語美文 - 閱讀榜
第二贊助商
加拿大譯帖 - 最新收錄
第三贊助商
國外優秀論壇 - 為您推薦
第四贊助商
經驗分享 - 閱讀榜
歡迎愛好網帖翻譯的朋友加入我們:
QQ群:307195648
聯系郵箱:[email protected]
無覓關聯推薦,快速提升流量
黑龙江22选5开奖结果走势图