國外網民：中國有能力發起大型跨國戰爭嗎？

　　正文翻譯:

　　Is China capable of launching a large-scaleinternational war like America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why or why not ?

　　中國有能力發起像阿富汗、伊拉克戰爭一樣的大型跨國戰爭嗎？為什麼？

　　評論翻譯:

　　The reason I'm wondering is that I've been readingseveral answers to another Quora question alluding to the fact that China isnot capable of launching a large war right now. My immediate thoughtwas: Why not?

　　我對此感興趣的原因是我在另一條問題的幾個答案中提及到，中國現在並無能力發起一場大型戰爭，我很好奇為什麼。

　　1+ Comments • Share (1) • Report • Options

　　Marco A. Lanz

　　China's military simply doesn't have the ability toproject military strength and war-making capabilities against nations notbordering its lands.

　　中國軍隊在面對非鄰近邊境的國家時，顯然沒有能力發動戰爭和保護她的軍隊。

　　The PLA is a defensive force, established to repelinvasion and engage in high intensity warfare for shortened periods of time inorder to move aggressors to the negotiating table.

　　解放軍是一支防禦性軍隊，基於抵抗侵略和參加短期高烈度戰爭以迫使侵略者走上談判桌的目的而建立。

　　The Chinese have limited access to foreign basesand lack a Blue Water to transport personnel and hardware.

　　中國軍隊缺乏境外軍事基地和藍海海軍用於投送人員和裝備。

　　While China could fight a large scale war againstRussia or India, it could not engage the United States or Europe (unless in adefensive posture).

　　中國可以與俄羅斯或印度展開大規模戰爭，但無法與美國或歐洲交戰（Note：這裡應該是指到美國或歐盟本土開戰）（除非處於防禦姿態）。

　　Historyalso dictates that China doesn't fight beyond its own borders, unless underextreme duress.

　　歷史也揭示中國不會遠離其邊境線進行作戰，除非其受到極端的威脅。

　　Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013

　　54 第一條回答，獲得54票

　　回答者：JonMixon

　　I have studied themajority of world conflicts from the Punic Wars until modern times

　　我曾研究過自布匿戰爭至今的所有主要國際戰爭。（O__O」……tree new bee）

　　No, China couldn't launchand win a major international war.

　　不能，中國無法發起一場重大的國際戰爭並獲得勝利。

　　For myriad reasons, including:

　　眾多的原因包括：

　　1. China has never, in its history, won a war thattook place farther than areas relatively close its borders.

　　中國歷史上，中國從未在一場發生在遠離其邊境線以外的戰爭中獲得勝利。

　　2. China has only "won" a single majorconflict in the last 50 years - That was against an incompetently led andill-prepared India in 1962.That was also a brief conflict and no air assetswere used.

　　在過去50年中，中國僅在一場單獨的衝突中「贏」得勝利，對手是1962年無能以及措手不及的印度。那是一場非常短暫的而且沒有空中力量參與的衝突。

　　3. China has very few large cargo aircraft - It haslimited in-flight refueling capabilities and there's no evidence that Chinaroutinely drills on deploying its troops overseas by air to hostileterritories.

　　中國缺少大型運輸機，缺少空中加油能力，而且，沒有證據顯示中國在軍事演習中嘗試過通過空軍向海外敵對地區投送或部署軍隊。

　　4. Chin has minimal amphibious forces - China has notperformed a successful amphibious assault since the 18th century and there's noevidence that it possesses the ability to do so.

　　中國只有有限的兩棲攻擊力量。自18世紀以來，中國從未成功發動過兩棲行動，沒有證據顯示中國現在有此能力。

　　5. China has minimal military maritime transportabilities - It also has never transported a large force by sea since , again,the 18th century. There's no reason to believe that they could.

　　中國只有有限的海上軍事運輸能力。同樣，自18世紀以來，中國從未通過海上運輸大批軍隊。沒有證據顯示中國現在有此能力。

　　6. There are few countries where China could launch anattack against and not come into conflict with either a member of NATO, countrywith a defense treaty with the US or the US itself. Any of these would expandthe conflict into a war that China would almost certainly lose.

　　世界上只有少量國家中國可以攻擊而不捲入與北約成員、與美國有共同防禦跳躍或與美國本身的衝突之中。與上述任何一個國家的衝突將導致中國被捲入必將失敗的戰爭。

　　7. There is little proof that the upper levels of theChinese military are, in fact, competent. Most Chinese generals are morebusinessmen than warriors and it is unlikely that they would bring muchleadership to conflict situation.

　　事實上，缺乏足夠的證據能夠證實中國軍方高層具有足夠的能力。中國大部分將領更像生意人而不是戰士，顯然他們沒有足夠的領導能力掌控戰爭。

　　8. The Chinese military is geared and trained moretoward suppressing internal dissent than it is for offensive military actions.It is difficult to believe that they could switch their training over to anoffensive role in a relatively short order.

　　中國軍隊更像是為鎮壓內部異見民眾而裝備和訓練的，而非進行對外攻擊性軍事行動。很難相信，僅靠一個突擊命令中國軍隊就能迅速變換角色訓練成一支進攻性部隊。

　　Upvote • 4+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013

　　該回答的評論：

　　Tristan Fernandes 1 vote by VarnitBanthia

　　True China cannot launch alarge scale attack at the same level of USA since the lack of resources (as youpointed out).

　　由於缺乏足夠資源（如你原文指出），中國當然不能像美國一樣發動一場大規模的攻擊行動。

　　ButI don't think it is impossible, if they make the effort. Right now they have apretty powerful military which continuously modernizing.

　　但是這不是不可能的，只要他們傾盡全力。現在中國擁有相當規模而且在不斷現代化的軍事力量。

　　Also another point tomention is development resources they dedicate - take a look at the roads theybuilt up the Himalayan range.

　　另外值得指出的是他們致力發展的資源，看看他們在喜馬拉雅山脈所建造的道路。

　　Also adding to your list,is the major internal conflicts China has inside and on its borders.

　　另外補充一點，中國的主要內部衝突在中國邊境地區和邊境線。

　　Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013

　　Jon Mixon: Nothingis impossible. However, many things are so unlikely that they have to besingled out. A nation which hasn't engaged in an overseas conflict in

　　centurieswould have an exceptionally difficult time doing as such.

　　沒有什麼是不可能的。然而，很多跡象表明他們不會專門向這方面發展。一個已經一個多世紀沒有發生過海外戰爭的國家如果發動海外戰爭顯然會遭遇非常多的困難。

　　Share • Report • 24 Aug, 2013

　　Ryan Lackey 1 vote by MaryPatnaik

　　China could go to war withNorth Korea without any international opposition. It's most likely thatthey'd do so after a collapse or coup or something, not as a direct war.

　　中國與北朝鮮開戰就不會有其他國家干涉了，但應該是在他們發生顛覆、政變或其他事情后才出現，而不是直接戰爭。

　　Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013

　　NorthKorea borders China. China's military history favors "home games."

　　北韓緊靠著中國。歷史上中國軍隊最喜歡在家裡玩躲貓貓。

　　Belbsir Mouad

　　let's not forget chineserole in the korean war

　　不要忘記中國人在朝鮮戰爭中的角色。

　　Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013

　　Jon Mixon

　　Who "forgot" it? China,at best forced a draw in a war where:

　　誰「忘記」了？中國，最多是在以下的情況下被迫議和：

　　1) The US never attacked their bases in China.

　　美國從未攻擊位於中國境內的基地。

　　2) Where the US intentionally limited its aims tokeeping South Korea non-communists.

　　美國有意將其目標限制於保持南棒子不被赤化。

　　3) The US declined to use nuclear weapons when iteasily could have.

　　美國在可隨時動用核武器的情況下拒絕使用核武器。

　　4) Where they were 25 miles north of the finalceasefire at the time the war ended.

　　戰爭結束時，他們在停戰最終停火地點以北25公里處。

　　Frankly,China was fortunate the Harry Truman had difficulties at home. Had the UStaken more aggressive posture, it is likely that there wouldn't have beena communist government in China.

　　坦白說，杜魯門在國內困難重重中國因此走了狗屎運。如果美國採取更具侵略性的姿態，或許中國現在就沒有共產政權了。

　　Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013

　　13 第二個回答，13票

　　Jim Gordon,

　　Third generation to servein the US military, grew up on air bases, served (USAF 1966-70 VN); US Dept ofState foreign service, 1974-84, ... (more)

　　根正苗紅，上下三代都在美國軍隊當大兵，在空軍基地長大，1966-70在越南，單位美國空軍，19774-84美國外交部們。

　　Most of the cost anddifficulty of going to war outside the homeland is the problem of supplying andmaintaining the fighting forces. Transportation and logistics are as vitalas combat capability. Unlike the US, China's merchant marine and airtransport capabilities don't have the surplus capacity to serve the domesticeconomy AND the military forces at war.

　　在本國以外進行戰爭的花費和困難絕大部分是怎樣維持和補給戰鬥部隊。運輸、後期和戰鬥能力一樣至關重要。不像美國，中國的船隻和空中運輸沒有多餘的能力同時為國內經濟和處於戰爭狀態的部隊服務。

　　Force projection is aproblem as well. China has sent naval vessels on long missions, to theMiddle East and around the Indian Ocean basin, but never in a large fleet ortask force. Chinese ground forces, while they DO have experiencedeploying across their own very large country, haven't got any modernexperience of deploying and operating thousands of miles away from their homeand logistics bases. Control of oceanic and air logistics routes andlines of communication would take forces away from the main mission effort.

　　軍事力量的投送同樣是一個大問題。中國曾經派遣海軍艦艇前往中東和印度洋海域執行長期任務，但從來沒有派出大型艦隊或特遣部隊。

　　China COULD fight alarge-scale, extended-term war in its own region, close to its own borders.

　　中國可以在境內或鄰近邊境的地區進行大型的長期性的戰爭。

　　Upvote • 2+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • 23Aug, 2013

　　Comment

　　Balaji Viswanathan 2 votes (show)

　　China doesn't have majormilitary allies. Historically, China fought its battles alone. That is a bigfactor when fighting battles far from homeland.

　　中國沒有重要的軍事盟友。歷史上，中國總是獨自進行戰爭。而當遠離國境進行戰爭時這是一個非常重要的因素。

　　Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013

　　Cheng Xuntao:Indeed. Allies can make logistics and projections much easier.

　　確實，盟友可以令補給和後勤更容易。

　　Alex Yactine

　　Could you please tell mewhere I can read more on this? I'm really interested about it!

　　能告訴我哪裡有更多相關的資料么？我對此非常感興趣。

　　Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013Cheng Xuntao: Maybeyou are interested in how China withdraw its citizens from war zones such asthe Libya case. This can give you a clue about China's capability intransportation.

　　或許你會對中國如何在黎巴嫩等戰亂地區撤離他的公民感興趣。或者這會向你提供一些關於中國運輸能力的線索。

　　11 這個回答有11票

　　William Petroff, MostlyHarmless

　　Their army just isn'tdesigned for it right now and so they don't have the infrastructure in place tobe able to deploy men and material on a large scale in a foreign nation.

　　中國軍隊目前還不是為海外戰爭為目標而設計的，所以他們還沒有足夠的基礎設施和能力大規模向海外部署部隊和軍事物資。

　　Here's the reality:

　　以下是事實：

　　· China's military has 208 transport planes, andthey're mostly short-range transports. For comparison, theUnited States has 278 C-130s and 217 C-17s, and that's just the two most commontransport planes that are in service.[1] China's air-transport capabilities areseverely lacking, meaning that they would have a hard time flying in theessentials like troops, tanks, or basic supplies.

　　中國軍隊目前擁有208架運輸機，但大多數是短途運輸機。作為比較，美國有278架C-130和217架C-17，而且這僅僅是兩款最主要的在役運輸機[注1]。中國嚴重缺乏空中投送能力，這意味著他們投送最基本的如軍隊、坦克或基礎補給時將非常困難。

　　· China's naval transport capabilities aren't allthat capable of far-reaching deployments. They have nearly 100amphibious transport ships, but they're all relatively small; their largestship is still smaller than the United States' smallest amphibious assault ship.The mission the PLAN has been asked to do has essentially been to defendcoastal waters and be able to invade Taiwan, and so they've developed theirweapons systems accordingly. That means a lot of faster, but short-ranged,troop transports and corresponding support ships.

　　中國海軍投送能力並非所有軍艦都能進行遠洋部署。他們擁有將近100艘兩棲運輸艦艇，但大部分噸位較小；他們最大的兩棲艦艇比美軍最少的兩棲艦艇還要小。解放軍被賦予的基本任務就是保衛海岸線和入侵台灣，他們據此目的發展相關武器系統，這意味著需要大量快速、但航程短的運輸船和相關船隻。

　　· China lacks the global infrastructure to supportforeign deployment. The United States has about 700 basesthroughout the world. This global network of American bases allows ships andplanes to operate without regard for range, it makes it easier to deploy assetsbecause of ready-made infrastructure (i.e. runways, utilities, communications,etc.), and it allows for a more rapid response in case something goes wrong. Totop it off, the United States operates the largest aircraft carrier fleet,meaning that they essentially have 10 mobile bases that they can get almostanywhere in the world. China doesn't have any of that, and while they have afunctional aircraft carrier, it's powered by conventional methods (oil) meaningthat refueling becomes an issue.

　　中國缺乏全球性的設施以支持海外部署。美軍在全球擁有大約700個海外軍事基地，美軍軍事基地網路容許艦艇和飛機運轉不需要考慮距離，完善的基礎設施（如跑道、公共設備、通訊等）使物資更易部署，發生緊急事件時可以更快作出反應。最重要的是，美軍擁有最大的航母艦隊，這意味著有10個移動基地可以到達全球所有地區。中國沒有上述任何一種資源，中國所擁有的訓練型航母是常規動力的（燃油），意味著加油將成為難題。

　　· As costly as large-scale wars are for the UnitedStates, it's likely that it would be much more expensive for China. Alot of China's military strength is still wrapped up in the fact that the justhave a lot of people/tanks/airplanes. The United States can do more with fewerpeople because they have better arms; while China has spent a great deal ofmoney and expended a large effort to modernize their armed forces, a good dealof that effort has gone to developing technology that isn't necessarily useablein such a conflict.[2] It would very likely take China more troops toaccomplish things.[3]

　　像美帝進行的那種大型戰爭，對於中國來說花費將會更為昂貴。中國軍事力量事實上只是主要致力於擁有大量人員、坦克、飛機。因為擁有更好的裝備，美帝可以用更少的人去干更多的事。中國花費了大量的金錢和努力去實現武器裝備的現代化，大量的精力用於發展在這樣的戰爭中（指海外戰爭）用不上的技術。這將導致中國使用更多的兵力去完成任務。

　　Look, the reality is that, as powerful as China's military is, the PLA isn'treally designed to project power that far beyond its own boarders; and sincemany of their neighbors' armed forces aren't exactly withering at the vine (orallied with the United States), that's not exactly that most preferable choice.And while it's a problem that they've been trying to rectify, it's one thattakes a pretty long time to develop a solution for.

　　事實就是這樣，即使中國軍隊如此強大，但解放軍並非設計用於向遠離自身邊境的地區投送軍事力量。在中國的鄰居軍事力量並非日漸減弱的情況下（或與美國結盟），（發展海外軍事投送能力）並非最好的選擇。即使中國嘗試更正發展方向，這也將需要相當長的時間去發展（海外作戰能力）。

　　[1] There are about another73 C-5s, 89 C-130Js, and hundreds of tankers.

　　另外大約還有73架C-5，89架C-130J和數以百計的空中加油機。

　　[2] Some of their biggestareas of improvement have been in modernizing their ballistic missiles, ordeveloping systems that are designed to work as countermeasures against moretechnologically advanced weapons systems (the anti-ship ballistic missile,boxes that trick radar homing missiles, etc).

　　中國最大的進步領域是他們彈道導彈的現代化，和設計研發能與先進武器系統對抗的系統（反艦導彈，反雷達容器，自動尋蹤導彈等）

　　[3] A fact that exacerbatesthe already debilitating transport issues.

　　一個將使很囧的運輸能力更加囧囧的因素。

　　Upvote • 2+Comments • Share • Thank • Report • Updated26 Aug, 2013

　　Comment

　　Jim Gordon

　　China's civil air transportassets would almost certainly be called on to support the militaryoperations as well.

　　中國的民用運輸飛機肯定將被徵兆用於支持軍事行動。