自由民主党称，英国必须建造自己的核导弹
UK must build own nuclear missiles, say Lib Dems
译文简介
“在2026年。你要么有核武器。要么等着被实施特种行动。”——BBC报道。
正文翻译
UK must build own nuclear missiles, say Lib Dems
自由民主党称，英国必须建造自己的核导弹
(Undated Ministry of Defence photo taken from video of the firing of an unarmed Trident II (D5) ballistic missile.)
（未注明日期的国防部照片，截取自一枚无弹头的三叉戟II（D5）弹道导弹发射的视频。）
新闻：
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
自由民主党领袖艾德·戴维爵士呼吁政府开始建立“完全独立的英国核威慑力量”，以结束英国对美国的依赖。
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
英国拥有对其核武库的操作控制权，包括英国制造的弹头，但它依赖于美国提供和维护运载这些弹头的三叉戟导弹。
Sir Ed told the BBC: "When we've got presidents in the White House like Donald Trump, totally unreliable, I don't think we can have our nuclear deterrent dependent on the mood at breakfast of the person in the Oval Office."
艾德爵士告诉BBC：“当白宫里有了像唐纳德·特朗普这样完全不可靠的总统时，我认为我们不能让我们的核威慑取决于椭圆形办公室里的人吃早餐时的心情。”
The government said the UK had a deep and longstanding relationship with the US and played a key part in the security of Nato.
英国政府表示，英国与美国有着深厚而长期的关系，并在北约的安全中发挥了关键作用。
The UK was the third country in the world, after the US and Russia, to develop nuclear bombs, which were initially carried by a fleet of RAF aircraft.
英国是继美国和俄罗斯之后，世界上第三个研发核弹的国家，最初由英国皇家空军的一支机队携带。
Since the 1960s, the UK has built and maintained a fleet of submarines armed with American-built missiles under a technology-sharing agreement with the US, which are continually at sea.
自上世纪60年代以来，根据与美国的技术共享协议，英国建造并维持了一支配备美国制造导弹的潜艇舰队，这些潜艇不断在海上航行。
The prime minister has control over when to fire the missiles, but Britain's nuclear arsenal is part of Nato's defence shield.
首相有权决定何时发射导弹，但英国的核武库是北约防御体系的一部分。
Sir Ed set out his argument in a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, saying the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security.
艾德爵士周日在约克举行的保守党春季会议上发表演讲时阐述了自己的观点，他表示，英国继续依赖美国的支持，对国家安全构成了不可接受的风险。
Sir Ed told the conference: "Britain's nuclear deterrent must be genuinely, verifiably ours – not dependent on Trump or whoever his successor may be. Trump has proven we can't rely on America as a dependable ally.
艾德爵士在会议上说：“英国的核威慑必须是真正的、可核实的，而不是依赖于特朗普或他的继任者。特朗普已经证明，我们不能依赖美国作为一个可靠的盟友。
"As the UK now prepares to replace Trident in the 2040s, we should make the decision now to spend the billions required over the next two decades here in the UK, not in the US.
“由于英国现在准备在本世纪40年代替换三叉戟，我们现在应该决定未来20年将数十亿美元花在英国，而不是在美国。
"Britain has the best scientists, the best engineers, the best builders in the world. So let's get building our own, truly independent nuclear deterrent here in the UK."
“英国有世界上最优秀的科学家、最优秀的工程师和最优秀的建造工人。因此，让我们在英国建立自己的、真正独立的核威慑力量。”
Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme earlier, Sir Ed added: "If we start now, we can be in a place where we control the missile technology ourselves and spend the billions that that's going to cost not in the United States but here in the UK."
早些时候，艾德爵士在接受BBC《劳拉·昆斯伯格周日》节目采访时补充说：“如果我们现在开始，我们能够自己控制导弹技术，并将数十亿美元花在我们英国，而不是在美国。”
In response a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every minute of every day and is the ultimate guarantee of our national security."
作为回应，英国国防部一位发言人表示：“我们独立的核威慑力量每时每刻都在保护着我们，并且是我们国家安全的最终保证。”
They added: "As the 2025 Strategic Defence Review made clear, a modernised nuclear deterrent will remain the cornerstone of the UK's defence, and our commitment to Nato and global security."
他们补充说：“正如2025年战略防御评估明确指出的那样，现代化的核威慑力量仍将是英国国防的基石，也是我们对北约和全球安全的承诺。”
The Lib Dems have not provided an estimate of the cost of their proposal, which would far exceed the billions being spent on the planned replacement for Trident.
自由民主党没有提供他们提议的成本估计，这将远远超过计划（只是）替换三叉戟所花费的数十亿美元。
France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
法国是欧洲唯二拥有核武器的国家，一直保持着完全独立的系统。
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
自由民主党表示，法国的做法证明了英国的主权能力是能够实现的。
The French missile programme in the 1970s is estimated to have cost about £20 billion in today's money and the party says this cost would be split over two decades.
据估计，法国在20世纪70年代的导弹计划花费了相当于今天的200亿英镑，该党表示，这笔费用将在20年内分摊。
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.
他们认为，这可以分两步走——开发一种方法来维持现有的三叉戟武器系统在国内的使用，并且长远来讲，制造一种完全由英国制造的替代品。
The party has traditionally been split on the issue of Britain's nuclear weapons.
传统上，该党在英国核武器问题上存在分歧。
Many in the party have campaigned for multilateral disarmament - something party sources insist they still believe in, while saying they must reflect the reality of the global situation.
党内许多人一直在争取多边裁军——党内消息人士坚称，他们仍然相信这一点，同时表示，他们必须反映全球形势的现实。
自由民主党称，英国必须建造自己的核导弹
(Undated Ministry of Defence photo taken from video of the firing of an unarmed Trident II (D5) ballistic missile.)
（未注明日期的国防部照片，截取自一枚无弹头的三叉戟II（D5）弹道导弹发射的视频。）
新闻：
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
自由民主党领袖艾德·戴维爵士呼吁政府开始建立“完全独立的英国核威慑力量”，以结束英国对美国的依赖。
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
英国拥有对其核武库的操作控制权，包括英国制造的弹头，但它依赖于美国提供和维护运载这些弹头的三叉戟导弹。
Sir Ed told the BBC: "When we've got presidents in the White House like Donald Trump, totally unreliable, I don't think we can have our nuclear deterrent dependent on the mood at breakfast of the person in the Oval Office."
艾德爵士告诉BBC：“当白宫里有了像唐纳德·特朗普这样完全不可靠的总统时，我认为我们不能让我们的核威慑取决于椭圆形办公室里的人吃早餐时的心情。”
The government said the UK had a deep and longstanding relationship with the US and played a key part in the security of Nato.
英国政府表示，英国与美国有着深厚而长期的关系，并在北约的安全中发挥了关键作用。
The UK was the third country in the world, after the US and Russia, to develop nuclear bombs, which were initially carried by a fleet of RAF aircraft.
英国是继美国和俄罗斯之后，世界上第三个研发核弹的国家，最初由英国皇家空军的一支机队携带。
Since the 1960s, the UK has built and maintained a fleet of submarines armed with American-built missiles under a technology-sharing agreement with the US, which are continually at sea.
自上世纪60年代以来，根据与美国的技术共享协议，英国建造并维持了一支配备美国制造导弹的潜艇舰队，这些潜艇不断在海上航行。
The prime minister has control over when to fire the missiles, but Britain's nuclear arsenal is part of Nato's defence shield.
首相有权决定何时发射导弹，但英国的核武库是北约防御体系的一部分。
Sir Ed set out his argument in a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, saying the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security.
艾德爵士周日在约克举行的保守党春季会议上发表演讲时阐述了自己的观点，他表示，英国继续依赖美国的支持，对国家安全构成了不可接受的风险。
Sir Ed told the conference: "Britain's nuclear deterrent must be genuinely, verifiably ours – not dependent on Trump or whoever his successor may be. Trump has proven we can't rely on America as a dependable ally.
艾德爵士在会议上说：“英国的核威慑必须是真正的、可核实的，而不是依赖于特朗普或他的继任者。特朗普已经证明，我们不能依赖美国作为一个可靠的盟友。
"As the UK now prepares to replace Trident in the 2040s, we should make the decision now to spend the billions required over the next two decades here in the UK, not in the US.
“由于英国现在准备在本世纪40年代替换三叉戟，我们现在应该决定未来20年将数十亿美元花在英国，而不是在美国。
"Britain has the best scientists, the best engineers, the best builders in the world. So let's get building our own, truly independent nuclear deterrent here in the UK."
“英国有世界上最优秀的科学家、最优秀的工程师和最优秀的建造工人。因此，让我们在英国建立自己的、真正独立的核威慑力量。”
Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme earlier, Sir Ed added: "If we start now, we can be in a place where we control the missile technology ourselves and spend the billions that that's going to cost not in the United States but here in the UK."
早些时候，艾德爵士在接受BBC《劳拉·昆斯伯格周日》节目采访时补充说：“如果我们现在开始，我们能够自己控制导弹技术，并将数十亿美元花在我们英国，而不是在美国。”
In response a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every minute of every day and is the ultimate guarantee of our national security."
作为回应，英国国防部一位发言人表示：“我们独立的核威慑力量每时每刻都在保护着我们，并且是我们国家安全的最终保证。”
They added: "As the 2025 Strategic Defence Review made clear, a modernised nuclear deterrent will remain the cornerstone of the UK's defence, and our commitment to Nato and global security."
他们补充说：“正如2025年战略防御评估明确指出的那样，现代化的核威慑力量仍将是英国国防的基石，也是我们对北约和全球安全的承诺。”
The Lib Dems have not provided an estimate of the cost of their proposal, which would far exceed the billions being spent on the planned replacement for Trident.
自由民主党没有提供他们提议的成本估计，这将远远超过计划（只是）替换三叉戟所花费的数十亿美元。
France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
法国是欧洲唯二拥有核武器的国家，一直保持着完全独立的系统。
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
自由民主党表示，法国的做法证明了英国的主权能力是能够实现的。
The French missile programme in the 1970s is estimated to have cost about £20 billion in today's money and the party says this cost would be split over two decades.
据估计，法国在20世纪70年代的导弹计划花费了相当于今天的200亿英镑，该党表示，这笔费用将在20年内分摊。
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.
他们认为，这可以分两步走——开发一种方法来维持现有的三叉戟武器系统在国内的使用，并且长远来讲，制造一种完全由英国制造的替代品。
The party has traditionally been split on the issue of Britain's nuclear weapons.
传统上，该党在英国核武器问题上存在分歧。
Many in the party have campaigned for multilateral disarmament - something party sources insist they still believe in, while saying they must reflect the reality of the global situation.
党内许多人一直在争取多边裁军——党内消息人士坚称，他们仍然相信这一点，同时表示，他们必须反映全球形势的现实。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 4 )
收藏
In 2026. You either have Nukes. Or you get special operationed.
在2026年。你要么有核武器。要么等着被实施特种行动。
Jolly_Psychology_506
I think the yanks would always respond in the greater interest of the west BUT the underlying message is that for too many decades we have just let our military go into decline. They constantly opt for cost over combat effectiveness and sometimes more cost and less effectiveness. Blunder after blunder. From the latest decision on the medium lift helicopter to the aircraft carriers having no cats or enough aircraft. The whole things a cluster fk. The only real answer will be to have more joint interoperability with Europe or else spend billions more which won’t happen.
我认为美国佬总是会从维护西方整体利益的角度出发来应对问题，但其背后传达的信息是，在过去的几十年里，我们的军事力量一直在不断衰退。他们总是把成本放在首位，而战斗力却常常被忽视，有时甚至不惜投入更多资金却降低战斗力。接连犯错，事与愿违。从最新的中型运输直升机决策，到航空母舰既没有猫（舰上宠物）也没有足够的飞机。所有这些简直是一团糟。唯一的真正解决办法就是加强与欧洲的联合协作，否则就是再投入数十亿美元，但这显然是不可能实现的。
CatchRevolutionary65
Not really, you need to be a small or relatively isolated country.
不完全是这样，你还得是个小的或相对孤立的国家。
tophernator
Like Ukraine or Iran?
比如乌克兰或伊朗？
CatchRevolutionary65
Well, yes. Russia thought Ukraine was weak. US/Israel underestimated Iran, thought it had removed its allies. US didn’t believe Iran could close the Straits. But they have
Proves my point.
Powerful countries don’t start wars with powerful countries because that would be ruinous for both.
好吧，没错。俄罗斯认为乌克兰很弱小。美国/以色列低估了伊朗，以为伊朗已经失去了其盟友。美国不相信伊朗能够封锁海峡。但他们已经封锁了
这恰恰证明了我的观点。
强国不会与强国开战，因为那样对双方都会造成毁灭性的影响。
MrSoapbox
I wouldn't call Russia a powerful country. I wouldn't have even called them that before Crimea, but people said I was silly, and now they're bumbling across cold wet fields on Donkeys. In fact, I'd say they're nothing but a joke.
I wouldn't even call a US without allies a powerful country (in war terms) because the thing that makes (made) the US strong were logistics, intelligence and allies, something it's now lacking in all 3. Iran proved that, but we all knew how it would play out, and thanks to Trumps pride they've gotten themselves into a bit of a bind, and also thanks to Trumps pride, he prematurely called it a win, insulted us and told us they don't need us...a few days later they're asking for help, even China (which is just embarrassing, after how they've acted)
The US was powerful in many ways, but this administration didn't understand the source of their power. They have a phrase "FAFO". Well, they did just that.
Unfortunately, they've screwed up everyone else, which is enough for them to keep hurting themselves, but it's also our fault because old phrases from Churchill, DeGaul or many historical figures are still relevant today, and we never listened to them, we never really listened to Trumps first term, but I think... finally, we're starting to realise and the world is moving on from the US permanently, and what made them powerful (which Trump opted not to nurture) is quickly vanishing. Sadly, that doesn't mean they're not dangerous...but, I think that's all they really care about anyway.
我不会称俄罗斯为一个强大的国家。在克里米亚事件之前，我甚至都不会这么说他们，但那时人们说我蠢，而现在他们却骑着驴在寒冷潮湿的田野里蹒跚而行。事实上，我得说他们不过是个笑话罢了。
我甚至不会称一个没有盟友的美国为一个强大的国家（从战争的角度来看），因为使美国强大的因素是后勤、情报和盟友，而如今这三点它们全都缺失了。伊朗的事例证明了这一点，但我们都知道结果会如何，而由于特朗普的傲慢，他们让自己陷入了困境，而且由于特朗普的傲慢，他过早地宣称这是胜利，还侮辱我们，并告诉我们他们不需要我们……几天后他们又请求帮助，甚至求助中国（考虑到他们的所作所为，这简直太丢脸了）
美国在很多方面都很强大，但这个政府并不明白其力量的来源。他们有个词叫“FAFO（自作自受）”。没错，他们就是这么做的。不幸的是，他们已经给其他人造成了极大的伤害，这足以让他们继续自寻烦恼，但这也是我们的过错，因为丘吉尔、戴高乐等历史人物的那些经典言论在今天仍然具有重要意义，而我们却从未认真聆听过，我们从未真正关注过特朗普的第一任期，但我认为……终于，我们开始意识到了这一点，世界也正在永久地摆脱美国的影响，而那些让他们变得强大的因素（特朗普选择不去加以培养）正在迅速消失。很可悲，这并不意味着他们不危险……但我认为，这大概就是他们所有真正关心的事情了。
Emotional-Ebb8321
Britain's legacy of empire is that there are many countries with long memories just looking for an easy win. The sad truth is that mad works. It's not like the uk has strategic depth or land borders with allied countries.
英国的帝国遗产是，许多有着悠久历史的国家只是在寻求轻松的胜利。但可悲的事实是，疯狂是有效的。英国与盟国之间没有战略纵深或陆地边界。
Epicurus1Herefordshire
I've got a 25% chance that Trump will drop a nuke to show how "strong" he is in the next year or two and mad goes out the window.
我觉得有25%的可能，特朗普会在未来一两年里投下一枚核弹来展示他有多“强大”，然后疯狂就会被抛弃。
r4ndomalex
I feel like it's going to be sooner than that if it does happen, if America gets fucked around with Iran it'll certainly be an option to end the war, at least with a tactical
我觉得如果这真的发生的话，会来得更快，如果美国在伊朗问题上被cao了，那么结束战争肯定是一个选择，至少是在战术上结束
VCR_DVD_USB
I've never understood why the left has traditionalky been anti military - especially anti nuclear weapons. They are a necessary deterrent against other nuclear armed adversaries.
The sensible military position the UK should adapt is having a strong military, capable of defending the UK and its territory.
We don't need foreign bases, we don't need to fight wars halfway across the war - we need to be able to crush anyone who threatens UK territory.
Long range strike capability with conventional and nuclear weapons is an essential part of that.
我一直不明白为何左派传统上一直反对军事力量——尤其是反对核武器。因为核武器对于抵御其他拥有核武器的对手而言是必不可少的威慑手段。
英国应当采取的明智军事立场是建立一支能够保卫英国及其领土的强大的军队。
我们不需要在国外设立基地，也不需要在遥远的地方发动战争——我们需要有能力击溃任何威胁到英国领土的敌人。
具备常规武器和核武器的远程打击能力是这一立场的重要组成部分。
VanicFanboy
I was against it up until a few years ago because I thought we were largely post-war and things were safe, and nukes only sought to make that worse.
Now I realise we are in an incredibly dangerous world, and having that deterrent is an essential component of protecting liberal democracy from evil.
直到几年前，我还一直反对这一观点，因为当时我认为我们正处于战后时期，一切都很安全，而核武器只会让情况变得更糟。
如今我意识到，我们身处一个极其危险的世界，拥有这种威慑力量是保护自由民主制度免受邪恶侵害的关键要素。
iMissTheDaysEngland
UK defence procurement is an absolute disgrace and shambles, it's why the French military is vastly more capable even though we spend more.
Yes, we should have a European nuclear force, it should be a pan European effort with the "good" neighbours (Keep Hungary etc.. Out)
英国的国防采购工作简直是一场彻头彻尾的耻辱和混乱。这就是为什么法国的军队竟然比我们强大得多，尽管我们的国防开支更多。
没错，我们应该建立一支欧洲核力量，这应该是一项全欧洲共同的努力，由“友好”邻国共同参与（把匈牙利等国家踢出去）
Astriania
it should be a pan European effort with the "good" neighbours
How do you guarantee the good stay good though? Would you have excluded Slovakia from this programme a few years ago for example? How do you define "good" - e.g. is Italy still "good" enough for you under Meloni? What if RN get control of France?
“这应该是一项全欧洲共同的努力，由‘友好’邻国共同参与”
但如何确保这种友好关系能够持续下去呢？比如说，几年前你是否会将斯洛伐克排除在这个计划之外呢？你如何界定“友好”——比如，在梅洛尼执政期间，意大利是否还“足够友好”能被你认可？假如国民联盟掌控了法国呢？
TheRetardedGoat
Sounds good in practice but then you realise we paid £13B for trident missiles.
We have no places to test the ICBMs if we were to manufacture and design our own and it's bound to explode in costs given we haven't got an existing tech/industry.
Estimates put an independent ICBM program as £60-£90B and could take 10 years.
Issue is also economy of scale. We develop all this for 80-120 missiles.
We are making our own nuclear warheads which is home grown.
I think the best option would be to join with France and Europe , actually stuff the french.
理论上听起来不错，但随后你就会发现，我们为“三叉戟”导弹支付了130亿英镑。
如果我们要自行制造和设计洲际弹道导弹，却没有合适的试验场地，那么这肯定会导致成本大幅增加，因为我们目前并没有现成的技术或产业基础。
据估计，独立研发洲际弹道导弹的项目成本在60至90亿英镑之间，且可能需要10年时间。
还有一个问题是规模经济问题。我们总共只为80至120枚导弹进行研发（成本分摊不了）。
我们正在自行研发核弹头，这是“本土化”项目。
我认为最好的选择是与法国和欧洲合作，实际上就是把法国也纳入进来。
Organic_Armadillo_10
Despite being British, why would it be fine for the UK to create nuclear weapons and not for other countries like Iran to have them? They are bad and nobody should really have them (I do get the reasoning behind it - but it's kind of dumb some counties are allowed them and it's no problem, but others have them and they start a war over it).
What's to stop Trump from deciding he now hates the UK and decides to start a war with us because of it?
尽管我也是英国人，但凭什么英国可以制造核武器，而像伊朗这样的国家却不能拥有呢？这些武器是邪恶的，任何人都不应该拥有它们（我理解其中的逻辑——但有些国家被允许拥有却没有任何问题，而另一些国家拥有它们就由此引发了战争——这有点愚蠢）。
有什么能阻止特朗普决定他现在讨厌英国了，并因此决定与我们开战？
ID3293
If the USA decided to cut off our support for Trident missiles we would have years before our nuclear deterrent became ineffective, long enough to source an alternative.
We use US missiles because we save billions over creating our own. If we chose to do this our defence would be materially weaker by choosing to spend the money there rather than on our conventional forces.
Ed Davey is advocating spending billions in taxpayers cash in order to replicate a capability we already have, weaken our defence, and irritate our most important ally, purely to pander to leftists who don’t like Trump.
如果美国决定停止对我们“三叉戟”导弹的支持，那么我们的核威慑力量失效之前还有数年时间，这段时间足够我们寻找替代方案。
我们使用美国的导弹是因为这样能节省数十亿美元的成本，而自己研发则需要投入更多资金。如果我们选择这样做，那么我们将因把资金用于此而使国防实力大打折扣，还会削弱我们的常规部队，并激怒我们最重要的盟友。而艾德却主张花费大量纳税人的钱来复制我们已经拥有的能力，从而削弱我们的国防力量，惹恼我们最重要的盟友，这一切纯粹是为了迎合那些不喜欢特朗普的左派人士。