单个国家能在战争中打败中国吗？ [美国媒体]

Is it possible for any single country to win a war against China?

单个国家能在战争中打败中国吗？




Travis Perry, Army Reserve Officer, avid reader of military history（预备役军官，酷爱阅读军事史）
Yes. Probably about 10 countries could defeat China in a war, virtually guaranteed a victory, IF CHINA WERE TO INVADE that other country.

可以的。可能有10个国家可以在战争中打败中国，几乎可以保证会胜利，如果是中国入侵那个国家的话。

I am not sure why most other answers assume other nations invading China. It is much more likely China would invade rather than the other way around. (And the question says “win a war with China” not “conquer China.”)

我不确定为什么其他答案都是假设其他国家入侵中国。相比那样，中国更可能入侵其他国家。（并且题目说“赢得一场和中国的战争”而不是“征服中国”）

As a nation, China is not equipped to project power a long distance. In an imaginary world where China could attack any nation it wanted to with only that nation replying (which of course is not realistic), China would fail in a land invasion of Germany. Or France. Or the UK. Or Israel. Or Brazil. Or South Africa.

作为一个国家，中国还不具备远距离投射力量的能力。在一个中国可以任意攻击其他国家，并且只有这个国家做出回应（这当然不太现实）的假想世界里，中国将失败与对德国的陆地入侵。或者法国，英国，以色列，巴西和南非。

Neighbors of China are in much more danger, but India, Japan, and Russia could probably defeat invasion attempts by China on their own. (And Afghanistan would “lose” to China, but make them regret ever having meddled with them.)

中国的邻居将更加危险，但是印度，日本和俄罗斯靠他们自己就能打败中国的入侵。（并且阿富汗将“输”给中国，但让他们后悔插手阿富汗）

Paul Denlinger, Have lived in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong; fluent in Mandarin (written, spoken)（在大陆，台湾和香港都居住过；精通普通话，说写都行）
Very unlikely.

不太可能

China fought Japan for eight years in China, and the Chinese never seriously considered surrender, even though it suffered more than 20M casualties. Those who advocated peace with Japan were eventually executed as traitors.

中国在本土抵抗日本8年之久，中国人从没认真考虑过投降，即使他们遭受了超过2000万的伤亡。那些主张和日本和平相处的人最终被作为叛徒处决了。

If the country fighting with China has a very large population, and is willing to take millions of casualties, then even then, it would be unlikely to win.

如果和中国战斗的国家拥有大量的人口，并且愿意承受数百万的伤亡，即使这样，他都不太可能会赢。

China has big numbers of people, and is willing to wait for a long time. How do you defeat a country like that?

中国有大量的人口，并且愿意持久地斗争。你怎么能打败这样一个国家呢？

Joshua Field, Bachelor in Political Science (Asian international relationships is my forte)（政治学学士）（亚洲国际关系是我的专长）
Here’s a joke for you:
Don’t ever start a war with China, because
-If you lose, you become Chinese
-If you win, you still become Chinese

讲个笑话给你：
别和中国打仗，因为
如果你输了，你会变成中国人
如果你赢了，你还是会变成中国人

Udayan Raju, lived in Lorton, VA（住在Lorton, VA）（译注：美国弗吉尼亚州一个地方）
I would like to quote from Hu Sinh, was a Chinese philosopher, essayist and diplomat.
“India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across Her border. ”
—Hu Shih 
Hu Shih - Wikipedia

我想引用胡适的话，他是中国的哲学家，散文家，外交家
“印度没有派一兵一卒穿越边境就征服和控制了中国文化20个世纪”——胡适
胡适——维基百科

Sikandar Azam Khan Alizai, Interest in international affairs and history（对国际事务和历史感兴趣）
It has become difficult to defeat a country without using a nuclear weapon. Take the example of Afghanistan for instant, the superpower of the time couldn't defeat one of the weakest armies in the world.

不使用核武器将很难打败一个国家。拿阿富汗当时的例子来说，当时的超级大国都不能打败世界上最弱的国家之一。

So considering that one can easily say that it will be nearly impossible to defeat China and since 1948 Chinese have been victorious in all of the wars they were involved in. They are modernizing their weapons and military so there is no doubt that in one to one war a single country most probably can never beat China.

考虑到这点，就可以说中国不可能被打败了，并且自1948年来，中国在所有参与的战争中都取得了胜利。他们正在现代化他们的武器和军队，所以毫无疑问，在一对一的战争中，单个国家很可能永远无法击败中国。

Rod Willett, Managing Director and Dish Washer at Small Businesses（做小生意的总经理和洗碗工）
As just about every other answer starts with, it’s important to define what type of war. I’m not going to go there. I’m just going to assume you mean all out war, ignoring nuclear weapons and were the goal is for China’s unconditional surrender.

正如其他答案所讲，重要的是如何定义这场战争。我不讨论这个。我就假设你说的是全面战争好了，不使用核武器，目标是中国无条件投降。

I would say only two countries have a hope in hell. Russia and the US, Russia doesn’t really have a hope. I would guess if they could win the initial combat operations. They might have a chance of holding the place down sort of. But I strongly doubt it and even if the succeeded it would be a long term disaster.

我想说只有两个国家有一点希望。俄罗斯和美国，俄罗斯其实也没什么希望。我想如果他们能够赢得最初的战斗。他们可能大概有机会把这个地方控制住。但我仍然强烈怀疑他们是否能做到，即使他们做到了，那也是一场长期的灾难。

The US could win an all out war against China in the military sense, but at what cost. The US thrashed the Iraqi army with not much more than a hundred thousand troops in theater. But that was the easy part. It was holding the place down afterwards that was the difficult part, and very very expensive in pretty much anyway you care to count it.

在军事意义上，美国能够赢得对中国的全面战争，但要付出什么样的代价呢。美国只派出十万多一点军队上战场就完全战胜了伊拉克。但这是最简单的部分。在战后掌握这个地方才是困难的部分，并且非常非常昂贵。

Iraq had a small population relatively speaking to China. It’s population was highly concentrated in cities and around the irrigation systems. It’s army was poorly equipped and incompetent with lousy moral.

伊拉克相比中国人口很少。他的人口高度集中在城市和水利系统附近。他的军队装备简陋，毫无道德。

China has a huge urban population, it has an even larger rural population. Given the Japanese experience invading China, I don’t think a surrender would come quickly or easily. I suppose you could aim to hold a few strategically important communication centers and the coastal cities, but that would still be a slow burn nightmare.

中国有巨大的城市人口，还有更多的农村人口。考虑日本入侵中国的经验，我不认为他们很快会投降。我想你可以计划占领少数的战略交通中心和沿海城市，但这仍将是一个慢慢燃烧的噩梦。

Occupying China would be a long expensive thankless waste of time and money that would in all likelihood leave the US exhausted and bankrupt morally as well as financially. Yes the US could win but at what unimaginable cost and that’s not even bringing nuclear weapons into play. You look at the American experience in Iraq then you look at China which would be orders of magnitude more difficult. In practical terms impossible.

占领中国将是一项昂贵的长期的毫无益处的浪费时间和金钱的行为，这必将使美国无论是精神还是经济上都精疲力尽和破产。是的，美国可以赢得胜利，但将付出难以想象的代价，甚至这还没有把核武器算在内。你看看美军在伊拉克的经历，在看中国，困难是伊拉克的数量级级别。实际上是不可能的。

Rahul Hada, CA aspirant , readaholic, ambivert（喜欢CA，阅读狂，内外向平衡）
In today's era where a fight between two countries can ignite a world war , there exists a little chance that any country is going to initiate a war. China is one of the of the countries which has a pretty large and sophisticated army , it is not easy for any country to fight a war against them , so it is really unlikely.

在今天这个时代，当两个国家之间的战斗可能引发世界大战时，那么任何国家都不太可能会发起战争。中国就是其中之一，拥有相当大和精良的军队，对任何国家来说和他们作战都不容易，所以不太可能。

Only America can give them a tough fight , but it's pretty hypothetical situation as China have nukes too and if they will be on losing side , then they will use them rather then surrendering.

只有美国能给他们一场艰苦的战斗，但是中国也有核武器，在假想的情况下，如果他们要输了，与其投降，他们更会使用核武器。

Edo Sebastian Jaya, Clinical Psychologist（临床心理学家）
Very unlikely. Not because China is super strong and other countries are super weak, but winning a war is extremely difficult.

不太可能。不是因为中国超级强大，其他国家非常弱小，而是因为赢得一场战争是非常困难的。

For example, in the Vietnam war the US won every single battle, but ultimately lost the war. Northern Vietnam was at a disadvantage to the US in every single aspects: economy, population, military, technology, allies, etc. Unsurprisingly, the US military won every engagement and inflicted heavier casualties. Surprisingly, however, the US loss the war.

例如，在越战中，美国赢得了每场战斗，但最终输掉了战争。北越与美国相比每个方面都处于弱势：经济，人口，军事，技术，盟友等等。毫无意外地，美国赢得了每场战斗，伤亡也越加严重。意外地，美国输掉了战争。

And to be fair to the US, during the American War of Independence, the US fought the UK, the strongest and largest empire in the world at the time. Again here the US suffered heavier casualties, had poorer military equipment and soldiers in contrast to the UK. However, against all odds, the US won the war against the UK.

同样以美国为例，在美国独立战争期间，美国同当时世界上最强大的帝国英国战斗。同样的，美国遭受了严重的伤亡，与英国相比，军事装备和士兵更差。尽管很困难，美国战胜了英国。

Evan Reif, studied at Kremlinology 1940-1991（学习俄罗斯政治与政策的研究分析）
It depends entirely on how you define this war.

这完全取决于你如何定义这场战争。

Is it a limited skirmish in the South China Sea? Is it an aggressive war launched by China’s given enemy? Is it an aggressive war launched by China? Who are they invading, how far away are they and why?

是发生在南中国海的一场有限冲突？是一场中国的敌人发起的侵略战争？是中国发起的侵略战争？他们入侵了谁，有多远，为什么？

China would be very difficult to invade because it is a very large country with very diverse terrain, a huge population, and perhaps most importantly, nuclear weapons. The Americans MIGHT be able to pull it off, but China would likely make it more costly than any war they had previously fought, and so without a very good reason, they would not attempt it.

中国很难被入侵，因为他是一个拥有各种地形的大国，还有巨大的人口，最重要的他们还有核武器。美国也许能够胜利，但中国很可能会让他付出比之前打过的战争还要大的代价。所以如果没有一个好的理由，美国不会入侵中国。

Likewise, China would have serious difficulties with force projection. The reach of their logistics is limited due to having only a small number of medium range cargo planes and a navy which, while growing and improving, is still frankly second rate.

同样的，中国在军力投射方面有严重的问题。他们的后勤限制于少量的中程货运飞机，并且他们的海军仍在成长和改善之中，坦白地说处于二等水平。

So, the answer is, it depends.

所以答案是，看情况。

Leo Moran, Papers in Modern Military History, Small Unit Tactics, Strategy, Military Law（在现代军事史，小单位战术，策略，军法方面着有论文）
The short answer is No
The longer answer involves some explanation…

短的答案就是没有
长的答案则需要一些解释

There is really only one nation in the world with the military strength to defeat China in a war, and that is the United States. What is often misunderstood these days, however, is that war is not a purely military undertaking, and whilst the United States is very strong militarily, it is also very fragile both economically and politically, especially in comparison to China. Attacking an enemy’s economic or political vulnerabilities are a valid means of conducting a war, especially if outmatched militarily.

实际上，在全世界只有一个国家拥有在战争中打败中国的力量，这就是美国。但是，现在经常被误解的是，战争并不是单纯的军事任务，美国在军事上非常强大的同时，在经济和政治上是十分脆弱的，尤其在与中国相比的时候。攻击敌人在经济或政治上的弱点是进行战争的有效方式，尤胜于军事方式。

Politically…

政治上

China would have an advantage against the United States, because no matter what, the same decision-making group, the Communist Party of China, remains in power. The population is, politically speaking, interested in just one thing: China… that’s it… completely monolithic. There are no meaningful cracks or ideological differences for an enemy to exploit. There is just one party, one system, one nation.

中国相对美国有优势，因为不论怎样，这个同样的决策团体——中国共产党，将保持执政。人民，政治上讲，只对一件事感兴趣——中国，就这个，完全的一块整体。没有敌人可以利用的裂痕和意识形态区别。
只有一个党，一个系统，一个国家。

The United States, however, has Democracy to contend with. Democracy is an inherently unstable system of government, which is prone to the ever-changing currents of public pique, and this fact has been used twice before to defeat the United States in war: once by the North Vietnamese in the late 1960s and 1970s, and again by the Somalians in 1993.

然而，美国则存在民主竞争。民主是天生的一种不稳定的政府系统，倾于受到千变万化的公众情绪的影响，这个事实以前已经两次被用来在战争中打败美国了：一次是在60-70年代的北越，一次在1993年的索马里人。

In both cases, the American populace had been successfully led to believe that they were easily winning to the point of being virtually untouchable.

这两个情况下，美国公众成功地被引导，相信他们将毫发无损地赢得胜利。

In Vietnam, this delusion was shattered by the Tet Offensive of January 31, 1968, when the North Vietnamese launched simultaneous attacks against every city and US base in South Vietnam, including in the capital itself, where the Viet Cong blew a hole into the wall of the US Embassy and fought their way in.

在越南，这种妄想被1968年1月31日的新春攻势打破了，北越在南越包括首都本身在内的每个城市和美军基地发起四面八方的进攻。越共还在首都的美国大使馆的墙上炸了一个洞，攻了进去。

In Somalia, it was a US raid into Mogadishu that went south when the Somali fighters proved to be far more organized than the American mission planners had given them credit for, and shot down 2 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, effectively pinning the American forces in position, and leading to a battle that cost 18 American, 1 Pakistani and 1 Malaysian soldiers and anywhere between 200 and 500 Somali fighters their lives.

在索马里，这是一次美国突袭摩加迪沙的行动，当发现索马里武装分子远比美国的行动策划者想象得更有组织的时候，情况急转直下。武装分子击落了两架UH-60黑鹰直升机，有效地把美军堵在原地，导致了一场18名美国士兵，1名巴基斯坦士兵，1名马来西亚士兵和200到500名索马里武装分子死亡的战斗。

Although both instances were heavy military defeats for the forces opposing the Americans, both instances, when revealed to the American population, led to demands made to the politicians to withdraw from the conflict.

尽管在两个例子里，美军的对手都遭受了严重的军事失败，但两个例子被透露给美国公众的时候，引发了使政治家退出冲突的需求。

In both battle and in war, victory is defined not by who took the smallest number of losses, but by who achieved their (political) objectives.

这两场战斗中，胜利的定义并不是谁遭受的损失最小，而是谁达成了他们的（政治）目标。

Economically…

经济上

Simply put, China makes stuff, America doesn’t. Specifically, China makes over 40% of the world’s “stuff”, and in some categories such as personal computers and (in particularly bad news for the United States) American flags, that share of manufacturing rises to over 90%.

简单地说，中国制造商品，美国不是。具体地说，中国制造的商品占比超过全球的40%，并且某些种类如个人电脑和美国国旗（对美国来说尤其是个），占比超过90%。

As a result, China could, as a tactic of war, convert their currency to a Gold Standard, and demand that anyone wanting to buy the goods of a particular category must pay in a Gold Standard currency.

因此，做为一项战争的战术，中国可以把他们的货币转换为金本位，并且要求任何想买特定种类商品的人必须支付金本位货币。

This would have devastating economic ramifications for the United States, not only because they have spent the last 25 years printing dollars non-stop without anything like a commensurate increase in their gold reserves (which, if forced to return to a Gold Standard, would lead to hyperinflation reminiscent of Zimbabwe in 2001–2008 which topped out at 79.6 BILLION percent), it would instantly obliterate the economy of its #1 export partner, Canada, because Canada recently sold off the last of its gold reserves and would therefore have nothing to back its dollar with.

这将给美国带来毁灭性的经济后果，不仅因为美国在过去25年来没有相应增加黄金储备的情况下毫不停歇地印刷美元（如果强制回归金本位，将引发极度的通货膨胀，使人联想到津巴布韦的通货膨胀率在2001-2008最高到达百分之796亿），这将会立即抹杀掉第一出口伙伴加拿大的经济，因为加拿大最近卖掉了他最后的黄金储备，因此将没有任何东西来支持他的货币。

This would not only cost the United States the buyer of almost 20% of its exports, there would be 35 million Canadians streaming across into Canada’s only neighbor with whom it shares a common land border as economic refugees (because with the annihilation of the Canadian Dollar, no Canadian would be able to afford an airfare to anywhere else)

这将使20%的出口货物没有买主，将使3500万成为经济难民的加拿大人通过共有的陆地边界进入他唯一的邻国（因为加元的破产，没有加拿大人买得起去任何地方的机票）。

Without a functioning economy, the United States would be unable to export goods in order to buy materiels for its war machine (or anything else, including fuel for the means of freighting the exports), and no-one in their right mind would extend them credit when their currency is worthless and becoming even more so every day due to hyperinflation.

没有一个正常运转的经济，美国将无法出口产品，然后去购买战争机器所需要的原料（或者其他任何东西，包括运送出口货物船只的燃油），并且没有一个头脑正常的人会在他们的货币毫无价值而且通货膨胀日益严重的情况下延长他们的信用。

Therefore, unable to replenish its strategic fuel reserves, even the mighty American military would either stay at home, or run the risk of grinding to a halt in enemy territory, completely cut off from logistical support.

因此，无法补充战略燃料储备，即使强大的美国军队要么呆在家里，要么在完全脱离后勤保障的情况下，冒着风险停留在敌人的领土上。

Jeremy Reyes, Student attending college for IT classes in Chicago（芝加哥某学院学习信息技术）
Yes, the Chinese manpower might be daunting, but from previous Wars fought numbers mean nothing when compared to technology and strategy. The Mongolians did it, numbers mean nothing. Alexander the Great was able conquer one of the world's greatest Empires and bring it to its knees.

可以的，中国的人力可能会令人畏惧，但以前的战争证明战斗人数相比技术和策略来说，算不上什么。蒙古人做到了，数量毫无意义。能亚历山大大帝能够征服世界上最伟大的帝国之一，并使之屈服。

Question is who can accomplish such a feat? People are saying Russia is incapable of doing so, but I beg to differ. The Japanese couldn't penetrate Siberia, Napoleon failed, the Swedish failed, Hitler Failed, the Russian winter really is deadly in all aspects.

问题是谁能完成这样的壮举？人们都说俄罗斯没能力做到，但我不敢苟同。日本人无法穿过西伯利亚，拿破仑失败了，瑞典人失败了，希特勒失败了，俄罗斯的冬天真的从各方面来说都是致命的。

America can decimate China's fleet and bombard their cities from the coastline, destroy supply lines. The airforce can destroy important Chinese positions. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

美国可以大量消灭中国的舰队，并且从海岸线开始轰炸他们的城市，摧毁他们的供给线。空军可以摧毁中国的要地。那些不学历史的人注定要重蹈覆辙。
（译注：此条回复）

Mike Wu
Yes and in the meantime the Chinese would be twiddling their thumbs?

讲得好，这个时候中国人就无所事事吗？

Allied bases in Asia would be the recipients of thousands of conventional missiles. Likewise costal American cities. US carrier battle groups in the Pacific would be targetted too.
If the US can't win wars in the Middle East against third rate insurgents what makes you think they can win against China? Not a good idea.

美国在亚洲的基地将受到数千枚常规导弹的攻击。美国的海岸城市也一样。美国在太平洋的航母战斗群也将成为目标。美国连中东的三流叛乱分子都打不过，是什么让你认为他们能打败中国的？不是个好主意。

Jeremy Reyes
You seem to biasedly overpower your countries abilities. You don't think the US would think ahead of time about their countries army bases stationed throughout Asia? Do you honestly believe your country to be impenetrable? Your country was brought to its very knees when Mongolia invaded, when the British conquered Hong Kong, you seem the avoid the topic of America's military capabilities and Russia's. You are overconfident and that will bring about your downfall.

你似乎偏颇地夸大了你的国家的能力。你认为美国不会提前考虑他们在亚洲的基地吗？你真的认为你的国家是坚不可摧的吗？蒙古人入侵的时候，英国人占领了香港的时候，你的国家都被打趴下了，你似乎在回避关于美国和俄罗斯的军事能力这一点。你太过自信了，那会让你（国家）垮台的。

Mike Wu
Hmm … I am a Singaporean and Singapore is an ally of the US and does maintenance and servicing for US forces in South East Asia.

嗯……我是个新加坡人，同时新加坡是美国的盟友，并且我们为美军在东南亚提供维修和保障。

We will probably be hit as well should a hot war arises between China and the US.

中美之间开始热战的话，我们也会被攻击吧。

I travel extensively in Asia and still do, to China. Just saying what I'm seeing.

我在亚洲走南闯北，现在也是。中国也常去。我只是说我亲眼看见的东西。

Jeremy Reyes
Fair enough, I'm just stating the obvious. Even of military bases are destroyed America will emerge greater then. After pearl harbor did America surrender? Did it get scared? No it came back greater than. This should be taken into account, as stated numbers mean nothing.

好吧，我只是陈述事实。就算那些基地都被摧毁了，美国也将以更强大的姿态回归。珍珠港之后美国投降了吗？美国害怕了吗？没有，他以比过去更强大的力量回来了。你该好好考量这点，正如我说的数量毫无意义。

Mike Wu
Yes. Getting your allies destroyed is not really fun for us allies.

没错。让你的盟友被摧毁吧，这对我们这些盟友可不有趣。

Don't be biased and overconfident. Being overconfident will be your downfall.

不要带着偏见，不要过于自信。太过自信会使你（国家）没落。

Jeremy Reyes
I wouldn't underestimate Malaysia's military and Singapore's.

我不会低估马来西亚和新加坡的军力。

Mike Wu
I, as with all male Singaporeans served in the military. I know my nation’s military capabilities and prowess. We have exercised with US forces too. I know what the US can do.
But I'd never never underestimate China’s capabilities. China may not win a war away from her shores. But it is more than capable to defend itself and inflict very extensive damage to those attacking her.

我和新加坡的所有男性一样，都在军队服过役。我了解我的国家的军事能力和技能。我们也和美国军队一起演习过。我知道美国能做什么。但我永远不会低估中国的能力。在远离中国海岸的地方，中国也许不能打赢一场战争。但他更能保卫自己，并给那些攻击他的人造成广泛的破坏。

Jeremy Reyes
Why attack when you can bait your enemy out? Would be the best strategy. Decimate their military, destroy their moral. This is how I'd fight a war against China.

当你能把敌人引出来的时候，为什么还攻击（本土）呢？这就是最好的策略。大量杀伤他们的军力，摧毁他们的精神。这就是我和中国打战的方式。

Mike Wu
Lol! Good luck. Bye.

呵呵！祝你好运。再见。

Jeremy Reyes
K

好吧

Michelle Gray, studied Politics & International Relations at Princeton University（普林斯顿大学学习政治和国际关系）
The United States of America.

美国

The United States continues to be the world’s sole superpower. From the largest economy, to the most powerful military, and the greatest amount of overall diplomatic influence in the world makes America an extremely powerful nation. The United States could defeat any attempt by China to attack the American navy or attack the American homeland. The United States could also destroy all major Chinese infrastructure and then claim victory.

美国仍然是世界上唯一的超级大国。从最大的经济体，到最强大的军事力量和世界最大的外交影响力使得美国成为一个极强的国家。美国可以打败中国攻击美国海军或者美国本土的任何尝试。美国也可以摧毁中国的所有基础设施，然后宣布胜利。

A few other countries could defeat China in a war if China attempted to invade their nation.

少数其他几个国家可以在战争中打败中国，如果中国入侵他们的国家的话。

Russia could defeat a Chinese invasion. Russia has an extremely powerful military with a lot of global influence and a decent economy.

俄罗斯可以打败中国的入侵。俄罗斯拥有极强的军事力量，很大的全球影响力和不错的经济。

Japan could also defeat a hypothetical Chinese invasion. Japan’s air-force can defend the air space over Japan with relative ease. Even though China has around 2,862 total aircraft fight for fighting compared to Japan having around 694, China would still have to keep around 1,200 aircraft at home to not leave their airspace vulnerable. This would leave about 1,662 aircraft for China to fight Japan. Japan’s air-force would concentrate on strictly defending the airspace over Japan. They would probably be assisted by the navy. The Japanese navy is also strong enough to defend the waters around Japan.

日本在某些情况下也能打败中国的入侵。日本的空军可以相对容易地保卫日本的领空。虽然中国有2862架战机，相对日本，则只有694架战机。而中国必须留守1200战机以防止领空毫不设防。这样中国只有1662架战机能参与战斗。日本空军专注于严守领空。日本海军也可能进行协助。日本的海军也足够强大来保卫日本周边的海域。

The United Kingdom, France, India, etc can also defeat a possible Chinese invasion.

英国，法国，印度等国家也能打败可能的中国入侵。