您当前的位置:首页 > 网贴翻译 Tips:使用 ← → 键即可快速浏览其他文章
北约有多强大? 1到2个国家有可能击败北约吗?
2020-01-27 墨点er 5 收藏 纠错&举报
原文标题:How strong is NATO? Is it possible for 1-2 countries to defeat NATO?
原文地址:https://www.quora.com/How-strong-is-NATO-Is-it-possible-for-1-2-countries-to-defeat-NATO
译文简介:印度一直不结盟,对新的外部战争也没有兴趣。 如果你再往下看看世界军队名单,你会看到美国的一些盟友——英国、法国、日本、德国、韩国、土耳其和以色列。 美国在第二和第三梯队的国家中也拥有许多可靠的盟友,而俄罗斯和中国在这些国家中没有盟友。 
Igor Markov 
Military power and capabilities by country drop off very quickly from the top - the US enjoys a huge advantage, followed by Russia and China, which are missing some important weapons systems and power projection capabilities, and have very few foreign bases. Russia's economy and human resources are far below those of China and the US. So, even if you pitch Russia and China against the US with its closest allies (Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand),
The question about “defeating” the US is ill-posed in many ways - attacking the US would be a suicide mission for any two countries (Japan and Germany tried that in 1941), but the US would be very unlikely to invade hostile countries with more than 100M people today. In wars, countries often have limited commitment and some have allies - for example, the US had a limited commitment in Vietnam, but Vietnam had powerful allies. So, the US can be defeated when its commitment is limited. But it has extensive alliences in many parts of the world - far beyond what Russia and China have.
India has been consistently unallied and has no interest in new external wars. If you go further down the list of world militaries, you will see a number of US allies - the UK, France, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Turkey and Israel. The second and third dozen also include many reliable US allies, and no Russian or Chinese allies.

北约的军事力量和军事能力在国家排名中迅速下滑——美国享有巨大的优势,其次是俄罗斯和中国,但这两个国家缺少一些重要的武器系统和力量投射能力,而且几乎没有外国基地。 俄罗斯的经济和人力资源远远落后于中国和美国。 因此,即使你让俄罗斯和中国联手对抗美国及其最亲密的盟友(加拿大、英国、澳大利亚和新西兰) ,也不太可能获得胜利。
“击败”美国这一假设在很多方面都不切实际——对任何两个国家来说,攻击美国都是自杀式的任务(日本和德国曾在1941年尝试过),而且美国也不太可能入侵如今人口已经超过1亿的敌对国家。 在战争中,国家的力量往往是有限的,有些国家还有盟友——例如,美国在越南的力量是有限的,而且越南有强大的盟友。 因此,当美国的力量有限时,美国可能会被击败。 但美国在世界许多地方都有广泛的盟友——远远超过俄罗斯和中国。 
印度一直不结盟,对新的外部战争也没有兴趣。 如果你再往下看看世界军队名单,你会看到美国的一些盟友——英国、法国、日本、德国、韩国、土耳其和以色列。 美国在第二和第三梯队的国家中也拥有许多可靠的盟友,而俄罗斯和中国在这些国家中没有盟友。 

Gabriel Yik,新加坡国立大学计算机科学学士(2021年) 
NATO is militarily very strong. I don't have details but with the U.S. and many of the Western European countries in NATO, all of whom are developed economies and have a sizeable and relatively effective militaries, the coalition is a force to reckon with.
But, that's a BIG but, that will only happen if they can stand together and be politically in sync. As seen from the recent Ukraine conflict, NATO has been slow to react. Even if they do react, it is mainly barking and no biting. NATO wants to impose economic sanctions on Russia for their supposed role in the conflict, but countries like Greece and even Germany and the U.S. are reluctant to do so, for fear of economic damage to themselves.
In this globalised, no past power can remain powerful. With economics ties so entrenched between NATO and Russia, and of course, globally, no matter how military strong they are, if they can't find a mutual approach to world affairs, I theorise that NATO might exist in name only in the future, no need for any country to defeat them.

北约的军事力量非常强大。 我不了解细节,但鉴于美国和北约的许多西欧国家都是发达经济体,拥有规模庞大且相对有效的军队,所以说,北约是一支需要认真对待的军事力量。 但是,(这是一个很大的假设),只有当他们能够站在一起,并且在政治上同步时,这才会发生。 从最近的乌克兰冲突可以看出,北约的反应迟缓。 即使它们有反应,也只是发发声,没有实际行动。 北约希望因俄罗斯在冲突中扮演的角色而对其实施经济制裁,但希腊、甚至德国和美国等国家都不愿这样做,因为它们担心这会给自己造成经济损失。 在这个全球化的时代,任何过去的强国都不可能保持强大。 鉴于北约和俄罗斯之间的经济联系如此牢固,当然,我的理论是,在全球范围内,无论它们的军事实力有多么强大,如果它们无法在世界事务中找到共同的解决办法,那么,未来北约可能只是名义上的存在,没有必要让任何国家击败它们。 

Fred Eidlin, 政治学教授,大国外交政策专家 
It’s hard to tell. On paper, it’s extremely powerful, as other commentators have argued. However, when I look at the reality of NATO, I am reminded of debates I used to have with my fellow policy analysts at Radio Free Europe in the late 1960. They would lay out how many bombers we had and how many bombers the Warsaw Pact had. How many men we had under arms, and how many we had under arms, and so on (it gets very boring).
Something bothered me about these discussions. They seemed so abstract, so detached from reality. It wasn’t until many years later that I understood why I had been so bored by these discussions. At bottom, I realized, the crucial question was which way the Poles and the East Germans would point their weapons in the event of a war.
Similarly, if you add up the potential military power of NATO it looks quite impressive. But can NATO members even agree on what a threat to the alliance might be, let along going to war? There are likely even many Article 5 situations, where many members would be unlikely to go to war to defend some country because of loyalty to the alliance. Each NATO member has its own distinct security interests, its own perceptions of the security environment. Unlike the situation during the Cold War, each time NATO calls upon its members to participate in some common enterprise, each member will make a decision appropriate to the situation. It may very well be that NATO is a paper tiger.

这很难说。 理论上说,北约是非常强大的,就像其他评论员所说的那样。 然而,当我审视北约的现实时,我想起了1960年代末与自由欧洲电台政策分析师同事们的辩论。他们会列出我们有多少轰炸机,华约有多少轰炸机。 我们手下有多少人,以及他们手下有多少人,等等(这很无聊)。 
这些讨论中有些东西让我很心烦。 他们似乎太抽象,太脱离现实了。 直到多年以后,我才明白为什么我对这些讨论感到如此厌烦。 实际上,我意识到,关键的问题是,一旦发生战争,波兰人和东德人将把他们的武器指向何方。 
同样地,如果你把北约潜在的军事力量加起来,那么,该力量看起来相当令人惊讶。 但是,北约成员国能就北约可能面临的威胁达成一致意见吗?更不用说参加战争了。 甚至有可能出现许多北约第5条规定所约定的情况,由于对联盟的忠诚,许多成员国不太可能为了保卫某个国家而参战。 每个北约成员国都有自己独特的安全利益,对安全环境有自己的看法。 与冷战期间的情况不同,每次北约要求其成员国参与某种共同事业时,每个成员国都将根据情况作出适当的决定。 北约很可能只是一只纸老虎。 

Giri Dv,就职于SRF有限公司 
Nato is made up of some bigwig countries like US, UK, Germany, etc.  So, normally it will be difficult for a two country combo to take on Nato.  Suppose it is a combo of China and Russia.  May be, then, the scales might be more or less equal.  Even then, the combined military might of Nato will be bigger than the China- Russia combo.

北约是由美国、英国、德国等一些大国组成的。 因此,通常情况下,两个国家的组合很难与北约抗衡。 假设这俩个国家是中国和俄罗斯的联合体。 那么,该联合体的规模可能或多或少是与北约相等的。 即便如此,北约的综合军事实力也将超过中俄的联合体。 

Charles Jannuzi,副教授(1994年至今) 

Is NATO really configured for any protracted war against a modern country with a capable military? The examples of Afghanistan or Libya hardly apply here. But look how they have done there. Horrible. The Taliban have defeated NATO on their home turf. And NATO stupidity and stooge relations with the US have defeated them in Libya. They belong on the dustheap of history.

北约真的准备好与一个拥有强大军事力量的现代化国家进行持久战吗? 阿富汗和利比亚的例子在这里几乎不适用。 但看看他们在这俩个国家的所作所为。 太可怕了。 塔利班在他们的地盘上击败了北约。 北约的愚蠢和与美国的傀儡关系导致了他们在利比亚被击败。 北约已经快要成为历史的尘埃了。 

Ali Demir,土耳其人 
Russia + Turkey can beat NATO. With Turkey in NATO, nobody can beat NATO.
This is because Russia + Turkey can control European energy markets. Without Turkey, Russia cannot do this alone.
US is too far to beat NATO.
Why would the US ever fight NATO? Answer: Silk Road. European NATO members’ interests deviate with the Neocon US interests with regard to the new world order that the Silk Road is about to introduce.

俄罗斯加上土耳其可以打败北约。 土耳其加入北约,那么就没人能够打败北约。 
这是因为俄罗斯和土耳其可以控制欧洲能源市场。 没有土耳其,俄罗斯无法独自做到这一点。 
美国不可能针对北约。 
为什么美国要和北约作战? 答案:丝绸之路。 丝绸之路即将打造一个世界新秩序,因此,欧洲北约成员国的利益与美国的新保守主义的利益即将相背离。 

Ken Larson, 有过2次越南之旅,从事国防工业36年 
The real strength of NATO is that its member are bound by an agreement that an attack on one is an attack on all. In earlier times when attacks were readily identifiable and easily defined that binding agreement was simple to exercise. In current times with terrorism, creeping nationalism and nuclear weapons at play the simple definition of that obligation is harder to manage with geopolitical clarity.

北约真正的力量在于,它的成员国必须遵守一项协议,即对一个成员国的攻击就是对所有成员国的攻击。 在早期,攻击很容易被识别和定义,有约束力的协议很容易执行。 在当前这个恐怖主义、民族主义蔓延和核武器横行的时代,这种义务的简单定义很难用地缘政治的清晰性来加以把握。 

Zarbakhat Janjua,在农场工作 
There are a lot of countries that can beat Nato ,if US is excluded ,alone or in pair ,
1.USA
2.China
3.Russia
4.Pakistan and India
5.Japan and Brazil
While the European Nations are Technologically very advanced ,their skills to fight a War on large scale and the mentality of the Nation is very Pacifist ,which is highly disadvantage in case of a War,More over there population fit for war and size of armies also are very low compared to these nation stated above.

如果美国被排除在外,有很多国家可以单独或成对的打败北约, 
1.美国 
2.中国 
3.俄罗斯 
4.巴基斯坦和印度 
5.日本和巴西 
从技术层面讲,欧洲国家的技术非常先进,但是,他们在打大规模战争方面的技能以及国家的意识形态非常平和,这是非常不利的战争。除此之外,欧洲的人口规模适合战争,但是军队的规模与上述列举的国家相比非常的小。 

Patrick Lundström,瑞典林雪平大学(2016) 
NATO is the most powerful alliance there has ever been. Both politically and militarily. Their equipment is state of the art and USA alone can fight every country on earth alone, including China.

北约是有史以来最强大的联盟。 无论是从政治上还是军事上来说。 他们的装备是最先进的,只有美国可以单独对付地球上的任何国家,包括中国。 

Kevin Duffy 
NATO is by far, the strongest and most powerful alliance in world history.
That's a pretty bold statement, but it’s very true. NATO consists of countries with some of the largest, and most powerful militaries in the world (the US comes to mind, obviously). Not to mention the size of NATO’s economy when you look at all the member states. BIG.

到目前为止,北约是世界历史上最强大的联盟。 
这是一个相当大胆的说法,但这一说法是非常正确的。 北约由一些拥有世界上最大、最强悍的军事力量的国家组成(显然,美国是其中之一)。 更不用提北约成员国的经济规模了。 总之,非常大。 
环球旅行
请文明理性发言,请不要发布违规评论,包括但不限于(诋毁、极端、敏感、歧视、色情、引战、人身攻击)等,如发现此类评论,请不要回复,直接举报。网站意见建议请点击 意见反馈
我要纠错&举报
文章地址
纠错类型
备注说明
 
我要举报
文章地址
举报理由
 
打赏评论
1、如果您喜欢此评论,可以对其打赏
2、不鼓励对违规评论(包括但不限于违法、辱骂、歧视等)进行打赏,系统将可能回收对其的打赏
充值