你认为未来100年内世界会发生全面核战争吗？
Do you think the world will ever see an all-out nuclear war within the next 100 years?
译文简介
虽然关于未来的预测总是可能被修正，但我认为全面核战争是不可能发生的。
正文翻译
How likely do you think we will have a nuclear war in the next 100 years?
你认为未来100年内发生核战争的可能性有多大？
BillY LEE Editor, theBillyLeePontificator
比利·李 《theBillyLeePontificator》编辑
It depends on how many old dictators with nukes there are, doesn't it? Old autocrats with grudges can start nuclear wars and take the planet with them, right?
Why wouldn't they? Isn't selfish cruelty a necessary prerequisite for absolute power?
Elected leaders who serve a few short years really can't go off the rails without a lot of help. They need consensus, which they don't have time to build. Checks & balances in a democratic republic like the USA make doing crazy stuff kinda hard.
Truman got folks to agree to a nuclear strike on Japan, but USA only had 3 working bombs at the time, and they were tiny by modern standards. It wasn't the same thing.
这取决于拥有核武器的老牌独裁者有多少，不是吗？心怀怨恨的老牌独裁者可能会发动核战争，让整个地球陪葬，对吧？他们为什么不这么做呢？自私残忍难道不是绝对权力的必要前提吗？任期短短几年的民选领导人，没有大量支持的话根本不可能失控。他们需要共识，但却没有时间去建立。像美国这样的民主共和国的制衡机制，让做疯狂的事情变得相当困难。杜鲁门说服人们同意对日本实施核打击，但当时美国只有3枚可用的炸弹，而且按照现代标准来看，这些炸弹的威力很小，情况并不相同。
Trump talked about four dozen folks into helping organize a coup. It wasn't enuf. His VP and Secret Service weren't on board, for one thing. Our top general sent a memo to military commanders to not cooperate in a coup if asked. It prolly helped.
I can think of only one autocrat with a grudge plus nukes who's getting old enuf to lose his happy face and try something crazy. China & the USA are watching him real close, just in case.
特朗普说服了四十几个人帮忙组织政变，但这还不够。比如，他的副总统和特勤局就没有参与。我们的最高将领还向军事指挥官发送了备忘录，要求他们如果被要求参与政变，不要配合，这可能起到了作用。我能想到的只有一位心怀怨恨且拥有核武器的独裁者，他年事已高，可能会收起好脸色，做出一些疯狂的事情。中国和美国正在密切监视他，以防万一。
So, nuclear war isn't likely, but the odds aren't zero either. If the chance of nuclear war in any year is one in a thousand, then it's about 10% over a span of 100 years. Then again, if the odds are one in a hundred, it's 63%, which makes nuclear war more likely than a coin toss.
因此，核战争不太可能发生，但概率也并非为零。如果每年发生核战争的概率是千分之一，那么100年内的概率约为10%。但如果概率是百分之一，那就是63%，这使得核战争的可能性比掷硬币正面朝上还大。
BTW, if the risk of nuclear war is 1 in 10 per year, then 100 years is enuf time to make the odds for war approach certainty.
To do the calculation, set odds for avoiding war in a year, raise the number by the power of the total number of years. Subtract theses odds of avoiding war from 100% to get odds for war.
顺便说一下，如果每年发生核战争的风险是十分之一，那么100年的时间足以让战争的概率接近必然。计算方法是：先确定每年避免战争的概率，将其乘以总年数的幂，再用100%减去这个避免战争的概率，就能得到发生战争的概率。
The real world can overwhelm math that might comfort us. Any screw up at all can trigger a cascade to catastrophe. So, we need young, happy leaders in the dozen or so nuclear-armed countries to have a safe future.
It will help a lot if these countries are not in the vice grip of angry old men with apocalyptic agendas.
现实世界可能会打破那些让我们感到安慰的数学计算，任何一点失误都可能引发连锁反应，导致灾难。因此，为了拥有安全的未来，十几个核武国家需要年轻、心态良好的领导人。如果这些国家不再被那些心怀世界末日议程的愤怒老者牢牢控制，将会大有裨益。
Andrew Hagen Studied Political Science at Acadia University
安德鲁·哈根 曾在阿卡迪亚大学学习政治学
No.
“Peace is good for business.”
One of the Rules of Acquisition.
We are a profit, business oriented species. Wars are very expensive and not always profitable, as Quark says, Peace is good for business. We like business and nuclear war is not a profitable endeavour.
不会。
“和平有利于商业。”
这是《获取规则》中的一条。
我们是一个追求利润、以商业为导向的物种。战争代价高昂，且并非总能盈利，就像夸克所说，和平有利于商业。我们热爱商业，而核战争绝非一项有利可图的事业。
Rob Roy
罗布·罗伊
No I don't think there will be any nuclear war. If you understand that any fool that launches a nuclear weapon has to either be suicidal or insane. If he launches a nuke against any country that also has nukes, while his nukes are still in the air a return reply is on the way. There is no value for both parties to destroy each other.
Knowing this, going to their deaths is not necessarily what those that pull the strings of most governments, want to go down for they love their own lives more. Apart from their lives most of these people are the filthy rich we talk about and they have an even greater fear which is being parted from their wealth. Money talks and they are more likely to remove their puppet government than to die or never see their money again. They value their own lives and their wealth more than dying for someone else's principals or ideals.
我认为不会发生任何核战争。如果你明白，任何发射核武器的傻瓜要么是自杀式的，要么是精神错乱的。如果他向另一个同样拥有核武器的国家发射核弹，那么在他的核弹还在空中时，反击就已经在路上了。双方相互毁灭没有任何意义。明白这一点后，大多数政府的幕后操纵者并不愿意走向死亡，因为他们更爱惜自己的生命。除了生命之外，这些人大多是我们所说的超级富豪，他们还有一个更大的恐惧，那就是失去财富。金钱万能，他们更有可能推翻自己的傀儡政府，而不是去死或者永远失去自己的钱财。他们更珍视自己的生命和财富，而不是为了别人的原则或理想而牺牲。
For this reason I even think nuclear weapons will one day be removed from worldwide military use.
If a nuclear war was started where do you end it, how many are headed your way, what are their capacities, do you send everything each country has because we are not sure how many inbound there are, and no one can factor in what the final outcome or destruction or effect on us all will be.
Will we end up removing ourselves from the face of the planet. The risk far outweighs the desire to find out what the outcome will be, and the sooner the world comes to this conclusion the sooner we will get rid of them.
There is no do over or reset button in case we don't like the result. The only deterrent value nukes have is a desire not to use them, for they are an overkill and not a practical solution. Neither are biological weapons for these same reasons either.
因此，我甚至认为核武器有一天会被从全球军事用途中移除。如果核战争爆发，该如何结束？有多少核弹会袭来？它们的威力如何？因为不确定来袭核弹的数量，是否要动用每个国家的全部核武器？而且没有人能预估最终的结果、破坏程度以及对所有人的影响。我们最终会从地球上消失吗？这种风险远远超过了想要弄清结果的欲望，世界越早得出这个结论，我们就能越早摆脱核武器。如果我们不喜欢结果，没有重来或重置的按钮。核武器唯一的威慑价值就在于人们不想使用它们，因为它们的杀伤力过大，并非切实可行的解决方案。基于同样的原因，生物武器也一样不可行。
Leslie Hancock Lives in The United States of America (1941–present)
莱斯利·汉考克 居住于美国（1941年至今）
Define “nuclear war.” Was WW2 a nuclear war? It's the only war that featured nukes. Or do you mean a nuclear Armageddon, the sort of mutually assured destruction everybody feared during the First Cold War? What about a terrorist, ie non-state-sponsored, nuclear attack, as in “The Sum of All Fears”?
Nuclear weapons have been stockpiled in vast numbers, at one point reaching about seventy thousand, but none have been used over the last 74 years. It's not a big stretch to imagine that luck continuing into the future.
It's obvious, I think, that the reason a state like Kim's DPRK or Iran would want nukes is that no country with a credible nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded and gifted with regime change. “Deterrent” is the important word here. I don't see Kim proactively nuking anybody; he knows that's suicide; but he also knows he's now immune to military threats from his enemies (ie, everybody on earth).
What I fear are loose nukes that might be used by True Believers who are literally suicidal.
先定义“核战争”。二战是核战争吗？它是唯一使用过核武器的战争。或者你指的是核末日，也就是第一次冷战期间人人都担心的相互确保摧毁？那么像《恐惧的总和》中描述的那种恐怖分子（即非国家支持的）核袭击呢？核武器已被大量储备，峰值时约有七万枚，但在过去74年里没有一枚被使用过。不难想象这种好运会延续到未来。我认为，很明显，像金正恩领导的朝鲜或伊朗这样的国家想要拥有核武器的原因是，没有任何一个拥有可靠核威慑力量的国家曾被入侵并被迫政权更迭。“威慑”是这里的关键词。我不认为金正恩会主动向任何人发射核武器，他知道那是自杀行为，但他也知道自己现在已经不受敌人（即全世界）的军事威胁了。我担心的是那些可能被真正的狂热分子使用的流失核武器，这些人简直是自杀式的。
Brian Morrison
布赖恩·莫里森
For all of my lifetime, the biggest threat was always from the USSR and then Russia.
Putins invasion of Ukraine has inadvertently shown he world that, for now at least, they aren't a threat to anyone.
News channels around the world broadcast scenes of miles and miles of Russian army vehicles and tanks broken down at the side the road and under equipped soldiers abandoning them on foot.
The corruption of the private (very rich) individuals and companies tasked with maintaining this equipment has been laid bare for the world to see.
The chances the nukes (which literally cost billions per year to maintain) having been treated any differently is in my opinion, next to none.
If he were to “push the button”, I wouldn't be surprised if a little flag with “bang” written in Russian came out the tube at the end.
在我一生中，最大的威胁一直来自苏联，后来是俄罗斯。普京入侵乌克兰无意间向世界表明，至少目前来看，他们对任何人都不构成威胁。世界各地的新闻频道都播放了这样的画面：数英里长的俄罗斯军用车辆和坦克在路边抛锚，装备不足的士兵徒步弃车而去。那些负责维护这些装备的私人（非常富有）个人和公司的腐败行为已暴露在全世界面前。在我看来，每年维护成本高达数十亿美元的核武器，待遇也不太可能有任何不同。如果他按下“发射按钮”，最后发射管里弹出一面写着俄语“砰”的小旗子，我也不会感到惊讶。
William Hembree I’ve studied weapons effects
威廉·亨布里 研究过武器效应
While claims about the future are always subject to revision, I consider an all-out nuclear war to be improbable. The only countries with sufficient nuclear weapons to qualify as being capable of an “all-out nuclear war” are the US and Russia, with the PRC a distant third. Each of these countries has too much to lose to consider starting a massive nuclear war.
We’ve already gone over three-quarters of a century since the first (and only) use of nuclear weapons and I see no compelling reason to believe we won’t continue to not use them. That said, there is a fair chance that some rogue actor (smaller state or non-state actor) will use one or several nuclear weapons.
虽然关于未来的预测总是可能被修正，但我认为全面核战争是不可能发生的。唯一拥有足够核武器、有能力发动“全面核战争”的国家是美国和俄罗斯，中国则远远排在第三位。这些国家都有太多东西可以失去，不会考虑发动大规模核战争。自第一次（也是唯一一次）使用核武器以来，已经过去了75年多，我没有看到任何令人信服的理由相信我们会停止不使用核武器的状态。话虽如此，一些流氓行为者（小国或非国家行为者）使用一枚或多枚核武器的可能性还是很大的。
你认为未来100年内发生核战争的可能性有多大？
BillY LEE Editor, theBillyLeePontificator
比利·李 《theBillyLeePontificator》编辑
It depends on how many old dictators with nukes there are, doesn't it? Old autocrats with grudges can start nuclear wars and take the planet with them, right?
Why wouldn't they? Isn't selfish cruelty a necessary prerequisite for absolute power?
Elected leaders who serve a few short years really can't go off the rails without a lot of help. They need consensus, which they don't have time to build. Checks & balances in a democratic republic like the USA make doing crazy stuff kinda hard.
Truman got folks to agree to a nuclear strike on Japan, but USA only had 3 working bombs at the time, and they were tiny by modern standards. It wasn't the same thing.
这取决于拥有核武器的老牌独裁者有多少，不是吗？心怀怨恨的老牌独裁者可能会发动核战争，让整个地球陪葬，对吧？他们为什么不这么做呢？自私残忍难道不是绝对权力的必要前提吗？任期短短几年的民选领导人，没有大量支持的话根本不可能失控。他们需要共识，但却没有时间去建立。像美国这样的民主共和国的制衡机制，让做疯狂的事情变得相当困难。杜鲁门说服人们同意对日本实施核打击，但当时美国只有3枚可用的炸弹，而且按照现代标准来看，这些炸弹的威力很小，情况并不相同。
Trump talked about four dozen folks into helping organize a coup. It wasn't enuf. His VP and Secret Service weren't on board, for one thing. Our top general sent a memo to military commanders to not cooperate in a coup if asked. It prolly helped.
I can think of only one autocrat with a grudge plus nukes who's getting old enuf to lose his happy face and try something crazy. China & the USA are watching him real close, just in case.
特朗普说服了四十几个人帮忙组织政变，但这还不够。比如，他的副总统和特勤局就没有参与。我们的最高将领还向军事指挥官发送了备忘录，要求他们如果被要求参与政变，不要配合，这可能起到了作用。我能想到的只有一位心怀怨恨且拥有核武器的独裁者，他年事已高，可能会收起好脸色，做出一些疯狂的事情。中国和美国正在密切监视他，以防万一。
So, nuclear war isn't likely, but the odds aren't zero either. If the chance of nuclear war in any year is one in a thousand, then it's about 10% over a span of 100 years. Then again, if the odds are one in a hundred, it's 63%, which makes nuclear war more likely than a coin toss.
因此，核战争不太可能发生，但概率也并非为零。如果每年发生核战争的概率是千分之一，那么100年内的概率约为10%。但如果概率是百分之一，那就是63%，这使得核战争的可能性比掷硬币正面朝上还大。
BTW, if the risk of nuclear war is 1 in 10 per year, then 100 years is enuf time to make the odds for war approach certainty.
To do the calculation, set odds for avoiding war in a year, raise the number by the power of the total number of years. Subtract theses odds of avoiding war from 100% to get odds for war.
顺便说一下，如果每年发生核战争的风险是十分之一，那么100年的时间足以让战争的概率接近必然。计算方法是：先确定每年避免战争的概率，将其乘以总年数的幂，再用100%减去这个避免战争的概率，就能得到发生战争的概率。
The real world can overwhelm math that might comfort us. Any screw up at all can trigger a cascade to catastrophe. So, we need young, happy leaders in the dozen or so nuclear-armed countries to have a safe future.
It will help a lot if these countries are not in the vice grip of angry old men with apocalyptic agendas.
现实世界可能会打破那些让我们感到安慰的数学计算，任何一点失误都可能引发连锁反应，导致灾难。因此，为了拥有安全的未来，十几个核武国家需要年轻、心态良好的领导人。如果这些国家不再被那些心怀世界末日议程的愤怒老者牢牢控制，将会大有裨益。
Andrew Hagen Studied Political Science at Acadia University
安德鲁·哈根 曾在阿卡迪亚大学学习政治学
No.
“Peace is good for business.”
One of the Rules of Acquisition.
We are a profit, business oriented species. Wars are very expensive and not always profitable, as Quark says, Peace is good for business. We like business and nuclear war is not a profitable endeavour.
不会。
“和平有利于商业。”
这是《获取规则》中的一条。
我们是一个追求利润、以商业为导向的物种。战争代价高昂，且并非总能盈利，就像夸克所说，和平有利于商业。我们热爱商业，而核战争绝非一项有利可图的事业。
Rob Roy
罗布·罗伊
No I don't think there will be any nuclear war. If you understand that any fool that launches a nuclear weapon has to either be suicidal or insane. If he launches a nuke against any country that also has nukes, while his nukes are still in the air a return reply is on the way. There is no value for both parties to destroy each other.
Knowing this, going to their deaths is not necessarily what those that pull the strings of most governments, want to go down for they love their own lives more. Apart from their lives most of these people are the filthy rich we talk about and they have an even greater fear which is being parted from their wealth. Money talks and they are more likely to remove their puppet government than to die or never see their money again. They value their own lives and their wealth more than dying for someone else's principals or ideals.
我认为不会发生任何核战争。如果你明白，任何发射核武器的傻瓜要么是自杀式的，要么是精神错乱的。如果他向另一个同样拥有核武器的国家发射核弹，那么在他的核弹还在空中时，反击就已经在路上了。双方相互毁灭没有任何意义。明白这一点后，大多数政府的幕后操纵者并不愿意走向死亡，因为他们更爱惜自己的生命。除了生命之外，这些人大多是我们所说的超级富豪，他们还有一个更大的恐惧，那就是失去财富。金钱万能，他们更有可能推翻自己的傀儡政府，而不是去死或者永远失去自己的钱财。他们更珍视自己的生命和财富，而不是为了别人的原则或理想而牺牲。
For this reason I even think nuclear weapons will one day be removed from worldwide military use.
If a nuclear war was started where do you end it, how many are headed your way, what are their capacities, do you send everything each country has because we are not sure how many inbound there are, and no one can factor in what the final outcome or destruction or effect on us all will be.
Will we end up removing ourselves from the face of the planet. The risk far outweighs the desire to find out what the outcome will be, and the sooner the world comes to this conclusion the sooner we will get rid of them.
There is no do over or reset button in case we don't like the result. The only deterrent value nukes have is a desire not to use them, for they are an overkill and not a practical solution. Neither are biological weapons for these same reasons either.
因此，我甚至认为核武器有一天会被从全球军事用途中移除。如果核战争爆发，该如何结束？有多少核弹会袭来？它们的威力如何？因为不确定来袭核弹的数量，是否要动用每个国家的全部核武器？而且没有人能预估最终的结果、破坏程度以及对所有人的影响。我们最终会从地球上消失吗？这种风险远远超过了想要弄清结果的欲望，世界越早得出这个结论，我们就能越早摆脱核武器。如果我们不喜欢结果，没有重来或重置的按钮。核武器唯一的威慑价值就在于人们不想使用它们，因为它们的杀伤力过大，并非切实可行的解决方案。基于同样的原因，生物武器也一样不可行。
Leslie Hancock Lives in The United States of America (1941–present)
莱斯利·汉考克 居住于美国（1941年至今）
Define “nuclear war.” Was WW2 a nuclear war? It's the only war that featured nukes. Or do you mean a nuclear Armageddon, the sort of mutually assured destruction everybody feared during the First Cold War? What about a terrorist, ie non-state-sponsored, nuclear attack, as in “The Sum of All Fears”?
Nuclear weapons have been stockpiled in vast numbers, at one point reaching about seventy thousand, but none have been used over the last 74 years. It's not a big stretch to imagine that luck continuing into the future.
It's obvious, I think, that the reason a state like Kim's DPRK or Iran would want nukes is that no country with a credible nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded and gifted with regime change. “Deterrent” is the important word here. I don't see Kim proactively nuking anybody; he knows that's suicide; but he also knows he's now immune to military threats from his enemies (ie, everybody on earth).
What I fear are loose nukes that might be used by True Believers who are literally suicidal.
先定义“核战争”。二战是核战争吗？它是唯一使用过核武器的战争。或者你指的是核末日，也就是第一次冷战期间人人都担心的相互确保摧毁？那么像《恐惧的总和》中描述的那种恐怖分子（即非国家支持的）核袭击呢？核武器已被大量储备，峰值时约有七万枚，但在过去74年里没有一枚被使用过。不难想象这种好运会延续到未来。我认为，很明显，像金正恩领导的朝鲜或伊朗这样的国家想要拥有核武器的原因是，没有任何一个拥有可靠核威慑力量的国家曾被入侵并被迫政权更迭。“威慑”是这里的关键词。我不认为金正恩会主动向任何人发射核武器，他知道那是自杀行为，但他也知道自己现在已经不受敌人（即全世界）的军事威胁了。我担心的是那些可能被真正的狂热分子使用的流失核武器，这些人简直是自杀式的。
Brian Morrison
布赖恩·莫里森
For all of my lifetime, the biggest threat was always from the USSR and then Russia.
Putins invasion of Ukraine has inadvertently shown he world that, for now at least, they aren't a threat to anyone.
News channels around the world broadcast scenes of miles and miles of Russian army vehicles and tanks broken down at the side the road and under equipped soldiers abandoning them on foot.
The corruption of the private (very rich) individuals and companies tasked with maintaining this equipment has been laid bare for the world to see.
The chances the nukes (which literally cost billions per year to maintain) having been treated any differently is in my opinion, next to none.
If he were to “push the button”, I wouldn't be surprised if a little flag with “bang” written in Russian came out the tube at the end.
在我一生中，最大的威胁一直来自苏联，后来是俄罗斯。普京入侵乌克兰无意间向世界表明，至少目前来看，他们对任何人都不构成威胁。世界各地的新闻频道都播放了这样的画面：数英里长的俄罗斯军用车辆和坦克在路边抛锚，装备不足的士兵徒步弃车而去。那些负责维护这些装备的私人（非常富有）个人和公司的腐败行为已暴露在全世界面前。在我看来，每年维护成本高达数十亿美元的核武器，待遇也不太可能有任何不同。如果他按下“发射按钮”，最后发射管里弹出一面写着俄语“砰”的小旗子，我也不会感到惊讶。
William Hembree I’ve studied weapons effects
威廉·亨布里 研究过武器效应
While claims about the future are always subject to revision, I consider an all-out nuclear war to be improbable. The only countries with sufficient nuclear weapons to qualify as being capable of an “all-out nuclear war” are the US and Russia, with the PRC a distant third. Each of these countries has too much to lose to consider starting a massive nuclear war.
We’ve already gone over three-quarters of a century since the first (and only) use of nuclear weapons and I see no compelling reason to believe we won’t continue to not use them. That said, there is a fair chance that some rogue actor (smaller state or non-state actor) will use one or several nuclear weapons.
虽然关于未来的预测总是可能被修正，但我认为全面核战争是不可能发生的。唯一拥有足够核武器、有能力发动“全面核战争”的国家是美国和俄罗斯，中国则远远排在第三位。这些国家都有太多东西可以失去，不会考虑发动大规模核战争。自第一次（也是唯一一次）使用核武器以来，已经过去了75年多，我没有看到任何令人信服的理由相信我们会停止不使用核武器的状态。话虽如此，一些流氓行为者（小国或非国家行为者）使用一枚或多枚核武器的可能性还是很大的。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
