有武器监测机构指出，到2030年中国洲际弹道导弹数量或将与美国、俄罗斯持平

-------------译者：一看就是好人--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

BhalaManushya
They are the 2nd largest economy in the world, buildup in the current geopolitical situation is normal tbh.

他们作为世界第二大经济体，在当前的地缘政治环境下加强军力建设其实很正常。

dpdxguy
Right? No one should be surprised by this. China has the resources to accomplish almost anything they have the will to do. The days of their technology being based only on reverse engineering and copying are at least a decade behind them.

确实如此。中国发展到这一步不该令人惊讶才对。只要有意愿，这个国家几乎有能力实现任何目标——单纯依靠逆向工程和模仿技术的时代，至少已是十年前的事了。

tigersharkwushen_
More importantly, they are the biggest manufacturer in the world, accounting for about 30% of the world''s manufacturing capacity. They could have the most of anything in the world if they choose to make it. If they choose to build ICBMs they could easily have many times the ICBMs than US and Russia combine.

更重要的是，中国作为全球最大的制造业国家，占据了接近三成的世界总产能。只要他们决定生产某种产品，就完全有能力拥有世界上绝大多数的这种产品。倘若中国选择全力制造洲际弹道导弹，其数量甚至可以轻松达到美俄两国总和的数倍之多。

dpdxguy
Yes. That''s what I meant by, "has the resources to accomplish almost anything they have the will to do."

对的。这正是我所说"只要有意愿，几乎有能力实现任何目标"的含义所在。

Thrilhouse
What shit ton of money and shit ton of people does to a mf.

钱多人多就会搞成这样。

-------------译者：一看就是好人--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

bareback_cowboy
It represents a major change from their previous nuclear doctrine however. While the US and Soviets had a doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the Chinese have maintained only a few hundred warheads. They have always had a policy of "no first use" and they would not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. With the US and Russia lowering their stockpiles over the years, why is China ramping up? Parity? Supremacy? A change in doctrine is coming.

然而，这标志着中国对其以往核战略的重大转变。美苏冷战时期奉行"相互确保毁灭"原则，而中国始终仅维持数百枚核弹头，并恪守"不首先使用核武器"的承诺，且承诺不对无核国家使用核武器。如今美俄两国逐年削减核武库存之际，中国为何反而加速扩张核武库？为了谋求战略均势还是战略优势？种种迹象表明，中国的核战略正在发生根本性转变。

DungeonDefense
Because of advancement in ABM tech. During the cold war ABM tech was rudimentary, now they can intercept 90-95% of incoming missiles. You need to increase the number of projectiles just to keep the same amount as before.

因为反导技术进步了。冷战期间的反导技术比较原始，但现在能拦掉90-95%的导弹。必须增加导弹发射量才能使命中量不下降。

-Z0nK-
Source for the 90-95% number? Last I heard ABM missiles were large enough to warrant their own silo infrastructure and had a high failure rate. I''d be surprised if the buildup of that capability was on a scale to defend against a full nuclear assault.

"90-95%这个数据来源在哪？据我所知，反导导弹体积庞大到需要专用发射井，而且失败率很高。如果这种防御能力已经发展到能抵挡全面核打击的规模，我会很惊讶。"

DungeonDefense
Take a look at Israel defending against Iran''''s missiles. Iran has launch almost 400 missiles but there has only been a dozen or two dozen impacts.

看看以色列防御伊朗导弹的表现。伊朗发射了将近400枚导弹，但只有十几二十枚成功击中目标。

-------------译者：一看就是好人--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Nerezza_Floof_Seeker
Youre talking about statistics for shooting down short/medium range ballistic missiles, which is completely different from shooting down warheads from an ICBM, which is what China would be using. Youre gonna be dealing with much faster relative velocity for intercepts, as well as multiple warheads and decoys per missile (unless you can hit them in the boost phase, but thats impossible unless youre next to the launch site). This is why even in tests there has been a relatively poor interception rate; in practice during a nuclear war, it would be even harder (have fun tracking targets when your radar is emp''''d and blacked out from early nuke detonations in space). Combine this with the fact that its always going to be cheaper for your opponents to add an extra warhead than for you to add an interceptor, its not surprising that nobody has invested into producing more than a handful of ICBM interceptors.

你讨论的是拦截中短程弹道导弹的统计数据，这与拦截洲际弹道导弹完全是两回事，后者才是中国会使用的武器。拦截时你将面临：高的多的相对拦截速度，以及单枚导弹携带多弹头+诱饵（除非在助推段拦截，但这需要抵近发射阵地）
这就是为什么即便在测试中拦截率也相对惨淡；实战核战争环境下会更困难（当你的雷达被太空核爆EMP瘫痪时，追踪目标将成为噩梦）。
更关键的是，对手增加一枚弹头的成本永远比你部署一枚拦截弹低得多——难怪没有国家大量生产ICBM拦截弹。

-------------译者：一看就是好人--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

-Z0nK-
Ok but not all of those 400 missiles were ballistic ones. How many ballistic missiles did Israel intercept? I distincly remember a few recent clips where the ballistic warheads definitely reached their targets. And since the action is only a few days old, are there even reliable statistics available?

好的，但并非那400枚导弹全是弹道导弹。以色列拦截了多少枚弹道导弹？我清楚记得最近几段视频中，弹道导弹弹头确实击中了目标。况且行动才刚开始几天，现在真有可靠的统计数据吗？

DungeonDefense
Huh? Why weren''t those ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles? Oh there''s definitely impacts like i previously said but the percentages are around 90-95%. Well you can watch the leaks if you want yourself. You can count the impacts and divide that by how many missiles were launched.

嗯？为什么那些导弹不算是弹道导弹？我之前就说过确实有击中目标的，但拦截成功率大概在90%-95%左右。你要是不信可以自己去看泄露的视频啊，数数命中数再除以发射总数不就知道了。

Odeeum
Wildly different. Rudimentary Iranian rockets are night and day compared to ICBMs. Iron Dome isn''t touching those.

（双方的导弹）天差地别。伊朗那些基础火箭弹跟洲际弹道导弹根本没法比，"铁穹"系统连后者一根毛也碰不上。

DungeonDefense
Iron Dome isn''''t touching Iraniam ballistic missiles wither. Its mostly David''''s slight and Arrow system.

"铁穹"对伊朗的弹道导弹同样无效，主要还得靠"大卫投石机"和"箭"式反导系统。

-------------译者：一看就是好人--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Odeeum
Still not viable against ICBMs unfortunately.

可惜的是，（这些系统）对洲际弹道导弹仍然无效。

DungeonDefense
Thats fine. Israel doesn''t need it since Iran doesn''t have ICBMs. For the US, they have the SM-3.

无所谓，以色列目前并不需要（反洲际导弹系统），毕竟伊朗还没有洲际弹道导弹。至于美国，他们有SM-3反导系统。

nogrip1
That''s Israel propaganda.

那是以色列的宣传。

Eric1491625
Yeah in fact China had the lowest number of warheads per GDP out of any country for many years. It was unusual that a country with 8x Russia''''''''s economy had 1/10th as many nukes. This is a return to normalcy. After accumulating 1,000 warheads, China would merely reach the same warheads per GDP as Britain and France.

确实，多年来中国的核弹数与GDP之比一直是全球最低的，一个经济规模8倍于俄罗斯的国家，核武库却只有其十分之一，这种情况本就反常。这不过是回归常态。即便积累到1000枚核弹头，中国的人均GDP核弹头占比也才勉强达到英法水平。

-------------译者：暖日快翻--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Newt-Wooden
Oh no! With that 20,000th war head they truly will be formidable! Not like only 20 could wipe out half the world’s population or anything…

哦，不！有了第2万个核武器，他们真的会很可怕！不再像仅是20个核武器就能消灭世界上一半的人口或任何东西…

brucebrowde
Which only shows how malleable people are. It''''s visible in all areas of life. Your car is pathetic because its top speed is 135mph, while mine is 155mph. Your TV is pathetic because it''''s only 4k, while mine is 8k. Your pathetic phone has a 40MP camera, while mine has a 50MP camera. Your pathetic house is only 6000 sq ft, while mine is 7000 sq ft. People just don''''t understand that "enough" is way less than what we''''re striving for. They think by participating in this propaganda-fueled race to the top they "win". In reality, we all collectively lose.

这恰恰证明了人多容易受影响。生活中处处可见这种比较：你的车极速只有135英里/小时（约217公里/小时）真可怜，我的能达到155英里/小时（约249公里/小时）；你的电视只是4K分辨率太寒酸，我的是8K；你手机的4000万像素摄像头拿不出手，我的是5000万像素；你家6000平方英尺（约557平方米）的豪宅不够看，我家有7000平方英尺（约650平方米）。人们根本不明白"足够"的标准远低于我们追逐的目标。他们以为参与这场宣传煽动的攀爬竞赛就能"赢"，实则我们全是输家。

Slaaneshdog
Yeah you''''re right, 20 war heads could absolutely not wipe out the worlds population.

是的，你说得对，20个弹头绝对无法消灭全球人口。

-------------译者：暖日快翻--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

OhNoTokyo
Directly? No. Aimed at the right targets? 20 nuclear weapons could seriously disrupt the necessary infrastructure to support our populations, especially in areas that don't have direct access to food production. Particularly if a few of those were detonated for EMP effect and caused massive power grid failures, we'd be in for a very bad time.

直接毁灭？未必。但若精准打击关键目标：20枚核武器就足以严重瘫痪维持社会运转的基础设施，尤其会重创粮食不能自给的地区。若其中几枚为制造电磁脉冲效应而引爆，导致电网大规模崩溃——我们的处境将极其艰难。

Newt-Wooden
I mean I’m no expert, might be able to get over half with 20, but would not kill everybody at least immediately. Maybe long term could be the total demise of the human race but not sure where you’re dropping 20 nukes to truly kill everybody straight away.

我的意思是我并非专家——20枚或许能消灭过半人口，但至少无法立即全灭人类。长期来看或许会导致人类种族彻底消亡，但很难想象怎样的20个核爆点才能实现瞬间灭绝。

TheLastSamurai
ok? I don’t care. I am so sick of the media playing their part of the military industrial complex mouthpiece.

好吗？我不在乎。我厌倦了媒体扮演军工复合体发言人的角色。

Wloak
Agreed. This is just an opinion piece. The US has as many as we do because the ones we know of were built over multiple generations with different effect. The headline being China "could".. is pure speculation ignoring decades of advances in rocketry and payload.

同意。这仅仅是篇观点文章。美国拥有与我们数量相当的核武，是因为已知的核弹是历经多代研发、具有不同当量效果的产物。标题声称中国"可能"如何...纯属臆测，完全忽视了数十年间火箭技术与载荷能力的进步。

-------------译者：暖日快翻--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Bitter_Water5298
This is blatant war propaganda. The media is trying to coerce us into believing that we need more nuclear warheads and/or go to war over WMDs. They did this with Iraq. Please reddit, be smart and dont fucking fall for this.

这简直是赤裸裸的战争宣传！媒体正试图胁迫我们相信需要更多核弹头，甚至该为大规模杀伤性武器开战。当年伊拉克问题他们就这么干过。Reddit网友们清醒点，别他妈上当！

brucebrowde
Of course it''s propaganda and of course most will fall for it and of course we''ll play to the tune. People think with the Internet it''s become a million times easier to know things. It''s at the tip of our fingers in the form of smart phones after all. That''s true, but at the same time we have so much information that nobody can process even the tiny portions or check what''s true and what''s false for all but the trivial things. So much of the information is manufactured not to put forward the truth, but to put forward whatever the powers at be want to be viewed as truth and today it''s trivial for them to hire a bunch of people to spread the misinformation exactly how, where and when they want it.

这当然是宣传，当然多数人会中招，我们也当然会跟着节奏走。人们以为有了互联网，获取知识容易了百万倍——毕竟智能手机就让信息触手可及。这没错，但与此同时信息爆炸到没人能处理哪怕一小部分，除了最琐碎的事外根本无从验证真伪。大量信息被炮制出来并非为了呈现真相，而是为强权想要的"真相"铺路。如今他们雇人精准散播不实信息简直易如反掌，时间地点方式尽在掌握。

-------------译者：暖日快翻--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

ryzhao
This is reddit sir. Asking for “smart” may be a bridge too far.

这里可是Reddit啊先生，要求"保持理智"恐怕有点强人所难了。

WEFairbairn
It''s newsworthy, the media should report it. Nuclear powers don''t/can''t go to war with each other anymore, unless through proxy war. I''m not sure how this situation is analogous to Iraq.

这是有新闻价值的，媒体应该报道。核大国不会/不能再相互开战，除非通过代理战争。我不确定这种情况与伊拉克有何相似之处。

hickoryvine
It really wouldn''t be surprising if they already do.

如果他们已经这样做了，那真的不足为奇。

Dassman88
Out of the three major powers, they’re the only ones with a defensive strike policy.

在三个大国中，他们是唯一采取防御性打击政策的国家。

laminatedlama
Btw China has been doing all their military advancements on a consistent 1.6% of GDP.

顺带一提：中国所有的军事进展，始终只用了GDP的1.6%就实现了。

rostamcountry
Where''''s all the tough talk about them? No appetite for conflict with people who can actually fight back?

怎么没人对它们放狠话了？难道是不敢跟真正会反击的人硬碰硬？

-------------译者：stevelawrence--- 审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

JRange
This would be a problem if China used bombs. They haven’t done that in like 50 years, unlike the US.

若中国动用炸弹倒算个问题。可人家快50年没这么干了——美国倒是反着来。

ShadowSniper69
China hasn''t dropped a single bomb (on an innocent civilian) since their founding in 1949. The US? Oh boy.

中国自1949年建国以来没丢过一个炸弹？ 美国呢？噢天呐

JRange
Google says 1979 during the Sino-Vietnamese war.

谷歌说中国1979年在越南战争干过

Slaaneshdog
China's smart enough to play the long game. Picking a fight when you're not ready is obviously stupid. But China's obviously building towards doing an invasion of Taiwan, and if they ever became the overwhelming superpower like the US has been for the last century, then I think people would be delusional to not expect China to be a lot more militarily aggressive than they have been.

中国足够聪明可以打持久战。在还没有准备好的时候挑起争端显然是愚蠢的。但中国显然正在朝着入Qin台湾的方向发展，如果他们真的像美国在上个世纪那样成为压倒性的超级大国，若还有人认为中国不会比现在更具军事侵略性，那简直是自欺欺人。