中国有反对萨德部署的正当理由吗？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：卡思-审核者：古柯------------



Does China have a legitimate reason to oppose the THAAD deployment in South Korea?

中国有反对萨德在韩国部署的正当理由吗？


-------------译者：荆楚老贼-审核者：bs1747------------

John Yoon Founder at Tildawatch (2016-present)
Written 7h ago
The answers here are outdated so here is mine in 2017 THAAD is just about to get deployed in coming weeks.

上述回答已经过时了所以我来补下新的，现在已经2017年了，可以得知的是萨德马上就要落实部署了，

No because China does not have a control over North Korea’s provocation or the instability of the regime or they are not exerting that control for political reasons.

没有正当理由，因为中国无法控制朝鲜的挑衅举措或者不稳定，或者说出于政治原因中国不去控制朝鲜。

These things became very clear since they lost a potential candidate to put as the leader (Kim’s half brother Kim Jong Nam) and North Korea now has the audacity to accuse China of playing to the tune of the U.S. regarding the matter. Despite China’s ban on import on coal Kim just fired ballistics missiles again four of them.

在朝鲜意外失去了一位候补领导人（金正男）的背景下，局势已经很清晰了，朝鲜开始鲁莽而不顾一切的指责中国与美国合作，并不顾中国的煤炭出口制裁试射了四枚导弹。

-------------译者：卡思-审核者：bs1747------------

Of course nobody in the region would provoke North Korea to become even more unstable. But with the recent defection of top officials and also their public executions the government is increasingly unstable under the new young leader. And Kim does not have a healthy lifestyle either. If Kim dies there is no real replacement as his other brother is not politically active.

当然，该地区没有人会去煽动朝鲜让它变得更加不稳定。但从最近高层官员的叛国行为以及他们的公开处决情况看，政府在新的年轻首领领导下越来越不稳定。金（三胖）也没有健康的生活方式。如果金死了，就没有真正的替代人了，因为他的另一个哥哥在政治上不活跃。

China knows this too so they set up fences and put forces to prepare for the mass exodus of refugees. And yet I see responses from Chinese people saying things like North Korea is not a real threat.

中国也知道这一点，所以他们建立了防御，并部署了部队为难民大规模外流做准备。然而，我看到中国人的反应却说朝鲜这样国家不是真正的威胁。

China is not offering real alternatives to THAAD. They are just annoyed by how powerful it is. It might be a slap to their ego but THAAD is a proper response to a powerful threat. It might end up saving millions of lives. Especially with South Korea’s politics in a chaos at the moment people in South Korea need some sort of security even at the cost of economical threats from China.

中国没能为萨德提供替代方案。他们只能恼怒于它的强大。这可能是给他们的自负打了一记耳光，但是萨德是对强大威胁的正确回应。它可能最终会挽救数百万人的生命。特别是现在韩国政治动荡，韩国人民需要某种安全感，即使是以中国的经济威胁为代价。

-------------译者：HerrSchmidt-审核者：bs1747------------

Hanhwe Kim Born and raised in Korea for the most part
Written Feb 4 2016
Colin Chau's answer to Does China have a legitimate reason to oppose the THAAD deployment in South Korea?

Colin Chau 对“中国是否有合法的理由反对韩国部署萨德？”的回答。

Colin Chau's answer above is pretty complete but I wanted to add that THAAD is a TERMINAL defense system. It is intended to intercept missiles that are falling on South Korea.

Colin Chau上面的回答已经很完善了，但我还要补充一点，萨德是末端反导系统。他被用来拦截落在韩国的导弹。

Although China may have political concerns unless Chinese missile forces are going to bombard Seoul there is no practical technical threat that THAAD poses. So even if the system were to work as advertised (actually a HUGE if given that hitting a mach 10 warhead is as difficult as trying to shoot down a bullet with another bullet) the concerns limited to the Chinese are entirely symbolic and in principle rather than practical.

中国可能有政治上的关切，但除非中国导弹部队要打击首尔，否则萨德不会带来现实的技术上的威胁。所以即便系统运行的像宣传的那样（实际上考虑到打击一个10马赫的弹头就像用一个子弹拦截另一个子弹一样，这是很困难的）。中国的关切完全是象征性的，出于原则而非实际的。

A system that could actually destabilize China's nuclear deterrent forces against the US would be a boost-phase or mid-course missile defense system that could intercept missiles aimed at the US or Russia. THAAD does not have any such capability.

一个真的能够动摇中国对美国战略威慑力量的系统应该是一个能够拦截打到美国或俄罗斯的导弹的上升段或中段的防御系统。萨德没那样的功能。

Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of this here:

维基对此有很好的解释：

Missile defense

导弹防御

-------------译者：卡思-审核者：bs1747------------

Colin Chau
upxed Apr 20 2015
Colin Chau
2015年4月20日
Yes in practical terms (I'll leave the "moral" patriotic parlaying to those who are emotionally involved in the matter). It's difficult to answer your question if you intentionally or unintentionally fail to define your terms. What exactly do you mean by "legitimate"?

实际上是有的（我会把“道德”爱国留给那些感情用事参与到这件事情中的人）。如果你是故意或无意地没有定义你的用词，将很难回答你的问题。你说的“合理的”到底是指什么？

Until that is defined I can stick with a more obxtive explanation of "why China does" rather than a subjective "why China should "have a legitimate reason.

在你定义清楚之前，比起主观的“为什么中国应该”，我坚持用这个更加客观的“为什么中国这么做”来解释它有一个正当的理由。

THAAD all-in-all represents a defensive capability that should seem like no harm but logistically in a planned battle space still represents a force projection. The reason for this is:

总的来说萨德代表一个防御能力，看起来没有杀伤，但整体而言在一个计划的战斗空间里仍然代表一个力量投放。原因是：

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

1. THAAD batteries are 100% kinetic in that they have no warhead or warhead housing unit. Most anti-missile batteries deliver projectiles that explode near an incoming rocket as a means of destroying the threat. However THAAD projectiles rely on direct impact with the incoming rocket which is more effective. Thus it could be argued that THAAD doesn't represent an offensive threat. But..

2.萨德系统100%凭借动能进行拦截，不携带弹头和弹头外壳组件。大部分反导拦截系统把发射导弹在来袭火箭的附近引爆，作为一种消灭威胁的方法。然而萨德系统依靠直接撞击来袭火箭的方法更有效。因此人们会说萨德不构成进攻性威胁。但是……

2. Defensive capabilities augment battle-readiness because in a war first strike initiators will make the best use of the element of surprise to take out high-value targets to set the pace for the conflict moving forward in the short term. Being able to thwart this means being alxed and avoiding the destruction of strategic and expensive materiel as well as human lives. THAAD essentially takes away such a first strike capability as an asymmetric advantage for the initiator and probably increases the costs through what would otherwise have been a less-effective reprisal.

2.防御能力会增强战备，因为在战争中，首先发起攻击的一方会尽可能的利用突然因素消灭高价值目标，从而在短时间内掌握推进战争进程的主动性。为了能挫败这种方法，需要防止并消除战略设施、贵重材料和人员生命受到打击。而萨德就能剥夺袭击者的这种先发优势，从而导致攻击者使用其他不那么有效的攻击方法，使攻击者承受更高的代价。

-------------译者：graper2010-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

3. China cannot face its domestic audience nor international audience if it doesn't say anything about the US deployment of THAAD in South Korea regardless of how much a game changer it is or not. It's military materiel it's American and it's in South Korea. Not every layperson is sophisticated enough to know how they work. It's less offensive than placing more ICBMs but it is symbolic to Beijing of the US "increasing its encroachment" in Asia.

不管THAAD是否是游戏改变者，美国在韩国部署THAAD，中国不发声将无法面对国内及国际舆论。这是美国军事装备而且部署在韩国。不是每个门外汉都能足够专业地知道这个系统是怎么运行的。这比部署ICBM（弹道导弹）显示的攻击性小些，但它也是美国在亚洲“增强存在”的标志。

China ultimately came out and reminded South Korea of their important economic lixs as a way to threaten seoul to pull out of the deployments. But this also put Seoul in a difficult position where it would look weak if it didn't respond strongly. And so seoul came out and stated in response that it would decide its own foreign policy and military decisions on its own as a sovereign nation without foreign interference. And I think this is a great illustration of how zero-sum the diplomatic game in Asia can be sometimes. There are just far too many interests working against each other culturally geographically and historically.

中国最终站出来提醒韩国两国之间经济交流紧密，希望以此来威胁首尔停止部署。但这同样将使首尔面临一个困难局面，如果它不强硬回应，会被视为软弱。所以首尔做出回应，作为一个独立主权国家，韩国将无视外部干扰独立决定自己的外交和军事政策。我认为这很好地说明了有时亚洲外交游戏是一个零和局面。这个地区有太多的文化、地理和历史利益冲突。

-------------译者：黑盒子-审核者：bs1747------------

Sam Eiji love politics and law
upxed Jul 10 2016
Ask yourself
Would USA sell THAAD to Iran to protect itself from possible attack from Nuclear armed Israel?
Given that it is purely an defensive weapon not an offensive weapon system
Like belligerent North Korea Israel had repeatedly threaten to attack Iran on many occasions.
Report: Israeli leaders planned attack on Iran military
Should Israel Attack Iran? Israelis Speak Out on August 28 2015
USA even opposed the Russia S300 system sales to Iran when it is merely a defensive weapon system.
U.S. concerned about Russian arms sales to Iran
Russia’s S-300 Shipment to Iran Appears Stalled Again
It doesn’t pose serious threat to USA .
USA and Iran are located in two different continents.

Sam Eiji，爱好政治与法律
最近更新2016年7月10日
问问你自己
美国会向伊朗出售导弹来保护自己免受以色列核武器攻击的可能？
即便已知它仅仅是一种防御性武器，而不是进攻性武器系统
就像好战的朝鲜，以色列曾在多个场合多次威胁要袭击伊朗。
关于以色列领导人计划袭击伊朗军队的报告
以色列应该进攻伊朗吗？以色列人在2015年8月28日说
美国甚至反对俄罗斯的S300系统销售到伊朗，而它仅仅是一个武器防御系统。
美国关注俄罗斯向伊朗出售武器
俄罗斯S-300运往伊朗再次陷入僵局
它甚至不会对美国构成严重威胁。
而美国和伊朗位于两个不同的大洲。

-------------译者：sssssss27-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

How can S 300 in Iran posed any direct threat to USA national security ( USA homeland)?

伊朗的S300系统如何直接威胁美国本土安全？

Similarly the USA wont allow such deployment in the Mexico or Cuba next to USA border.

同样情况，美国不会允许S300部署在美墨边境或美古边境。

Cuban Crisis only happen because the USA wants to impose their wills on the domestic affairs of Cuba.

古巴危机的爆发仅仅是因为美国想要强行干涉给古巴内政。

Cuba has an absolute right to allow Russia to station their weapon on their own soils given that USA have build military bases all around the world in defiance of neighboring nations.

古巴有绝对的权利允许苏联部署武器到自己本土，而且美国在全球建立军事基地挑衅邻国。

In conclusion China and Russia have legitimate reason to oppose USA THAAD in South Korea next to their border.

这样的话，中俄有权反对美国在临近中俄的韩国部署THAAD。

Such event would highlight to us whether or not South Korea truly enjoys independent foreign policy - A sovereign nation or they are merely a USA puppets.

这次事件提醒我们韩国是否享有完全独立外交政策权利，是一个自主国家或者仅仅是美国的小弟。