【reddit评论】日本建立了自二战以来首支海军陆战队以加强对中国的防御 [美国媒体]

SASEBO/TOKYO, Japan - Japan on Saturday activated its first marine unit since World War Two trained to counter invaders occupying Japanese islands along the edge of the East China Sea that Tokyo fears are vulnerable to attack by China.
China, which dominates the South China Sea, is outpacing Japan in defense spending.
Newsham, who helped train Japan's first amphibious troops as a U.S. Marine Corps colonel liaison officer assigned to the Ground Self Defense Force, said Japan still needs a joint navy-army amphibious headquarters to coordinate operations as well as more amphibious ships to carry troops and equipment.

autotldr：
日本，东京/佐世保——日本在上周六启用了二战以来的第一支海军陆战队，训练这支部队对抗占领东中国海(East China Sea，中国称东海)沿线的日本岛屿的入侵者，日本担心这些岛屿会受到中国的攻击。

中国在南中国海已占据主导地位，在国防支出方面超过日本。

纽沙姆作为美国海军陆战队上校联络官，负责自卫队地面部队，曾协助训练日本的第一批两栖作战部队。他说，日本还需要一个海军陆战队的联合司令部来协调作战，并需要更多的两栖舰艇来运送部队和装备。


the0clean0slate 
The way they phrase the headline for this development is the classic Western media tactics to pit non Western countries against each other and add fuel to the divide and conquer fire.
This type of tricks is why mainstream Western media is losing its credibility with non Westerners day by day.

他们用以表述这一进展的标题描述方式是西方典型的媒体策略，让非西方国家互相攻击，并在分裂和征服火中添油加火。
这种伎俩是非西方人对西方主流媒体日益丧失信任的原因所在。

Hotfire-Coldice 
Sad how the japanese military is used to pit china and japan against each other when usa is the true threat. US troops rape japanese daily. Creating thousands of wmaf and bmaf.

可悲的是，美国才是真正的威胁，日本军队是如何被利用以让中国和日本互相攻击的。美国军队每天强奸日本人。创造成千上万的白男黄女混血儿和黑男黄女混血儿。

NamelessLiberty  
China needs to worry about their allies though. China is like that rude and obnoxious bully on the playground nobody likes.

不过，中国需要担心他们的盟友。在世界舞台上，中国就像一个没有人喜欢的粗鲁可恶的恃强凌弱者

dawumao 
nobody likes superpower, it's understandable.

没有人喜欢超级大国，这是可以理解的。

mrsvinchenzo 
But...I thought they weren't "allowed" to have a standing army.

但是…我以为日本不“被允许”有一支常备军。

lintbert
From what little "research" I did they are allowed to have Self-Defense Forces. "Japan has the Jieitai or Japan Self-Defense Forces. The SDF is a full-fledged military, with army, navy, and air force branches. Technically the SDF is not allowed to conduct offensive operations or to deploy outside Japan, but it is still a very potent military force."

稍微研究了一下，他们确实被允许拥有自卫队。“日本有日本自卫队。自卫队是一支成熟的军队，有陆军、海军和空军分支机构。从技术上讲，自卫队不允许进行进攻性行动，也不允许在日本以外地区部署，但它仍然是一支非常强大的军事力量。

FPS_Coke 
Yes, it seems it's generally glossed over, but the JSDF does indeed exist, and is only used for self-defense and natural disaster search and rescue.
And when Godzilla attacks. Or when they get transported to another world in a thinly-veiled militaristic propaganda anime. lol

是的，它似乎很不为人知了，但是日本自卫队确实存在，而且只用于自卫和自然灾害的搜索和救援。

还有当哥斯拉攻击时。或者当他们被一种含蓄的军国主义宣传动漫传送到另一个世界的时候。哈哈

WasteGovernmentTime 
Furthermore, I believe in 2014 or 15 Japan lifted the ban on military self-defence in response to the whole south China Sea thing, much to the dismay of the Japanese public.

此外，我相信，2014年或15年，日本解除了对整个南海的军事自卫禁令，这令日本民众大为沮丧

Demonicjapsel 
The constitutional change wasn't nearly as dramatic as that. In short, 2013 caused a major shift in Japanese defensive thinking. For one, it got intel from Beijing that Xi, the PLAN and PLAAF had a serious go/ no go meeting for using armed force to seize the Senkaku's. In 2016 PLAN and PLAAF sources revealed that the reason they hadn't was because losing a war would be an existential threat to the CCCP to the point that it very much could cause a dissolution of the communist single party state.
The second reason is that the Japanese constitution caused severe issues to military operating procedures. This was fine in the 50's. In short, under the previous, non amended constitution, the JASDF isn't allowed to defend anything or anybody except itself. AKA, a cruisemissile heading for a US ship could not be shot down by a Japanese ship if it was in the position to do so.
The new, amended constitution allows Japan to essentially practice the act of "collective self defense", which allows Japan, in the event of war, to defend its allies. Now, the constitution still doesn't allow for offensive wars, but does, for instance allow Japan to come to the Aid of the US in the case that the Chinese decide to play ball in the South China sea.
The change in the constitution has made Japan the defacto leader of an informal alliance between Japan, South Korea, India and Australia aimed at containing China.

宪法的改变并没有那么戏剧化。简而言之，2013年日本的防卫性思维发生了重大转变。首先，它得到了来自北京的情报，中国人民解放军海、空军对要不要使用武力占领尖阁列岛（钓鱼岛）进行了认真开会研究。在2016年，来自中国解放军海、空军的消息来源透露，他们之所以没有这样做是因为输掉一场战争将会对CCCP造成生死存亡的威胁，以至于很可能导致这个共产主义的单一政党国家解体。

第二个原因是日本宪法对军事操作规程造成了严重的问题。这在50年代很好。简而言之，在之前的未修改宪法中，日本自卫队除了保护自己，不被允许保护任何东西或任何人。也就是说，一艘美国军舰的巡航导弹不能被一艘日本船只击落，即便它能这样做。
新修订的宪法允许日本在本质上实践“集体自卫”的行为，这允许日本在战争中保护其盟友。现在，宪法仍然不允许发动进攻性战争，但是，确实允许日本在诸如中国决定在南中国海有所行动的情况下帮助美国。

日本宪法的修改使日本成为了日本、韩国、印度和澳大利亚之间旨在遏制中国的非正式联盟的领导者。

captain-burrito 
When did Japan actually amend their constitution?IIRC they haven't. They are still wanting to amend the article about amending the constitution first as that has a higher chance of success. Then when that is made easier they want to amend the constitution that deals with self defence.
Their constitution has never been successfully amended afaik.
The change that was enacted was just a law that changed their interpretation of self defence to one of collective self defence. After that the government's approval rating dropped and they've put off a referendum on amending the constitution for now. They'll likely wait for a more opportune time .

日本是什么时候修改宪法的?如果我没记错，他们还没有修宪过。他们仍然想要修改宪法第一修正案，因为那有更高的成功机会。这样一来，他们就想要修改宪法来解决自卫问题就更容易了。

他们的宪法从未被成功修改过。

所颁布的改变只是改变了一项法律，将他们对自卫的解释转变为集体自卫。在那之后，政府的支持率下降了，他们已经推迟了关于修改宪法的全民公投。他们可能会等待一个更合适的时机。

AusNorman 
Late 2015 they changed some things constitutionally that allow their forces to be deployed outside of Japan.

2015年末，他们改变了宪法中的一些规定，以允许他们的军队部署在日本之外。

Megustoelbertolucci 
That's a constitutional issue
And as such, can be changed. Which they have been slowly but steadily doing since the 50's. Previously, they wouldn't send peacekeepers or any humanitarian aid mission with the military, nowadays they do it.

这是一个宪法问题。
因此，这是可以改变的。
从50年代开始，他们一直在缓慢而稳步地进行着这件事。以前，他们不会派遣维和部队或任何人道主义援助团，现在他们会这样做。

YNot 
They have the second most powerful Navy in the Pacific behind the US, and unlike China they actually have an admiralty with the traditions and experience to command a large navy.

他们在太平洋地区拥有仅次于美国的第二强大的海军，与中国不同的是，他们拥有一只真的拥有指挥大型海军的传统和经验的海军部。

rightwingerandproud 
I don't get the nonsense over Japan's 'anti Imperialism' Constitution not allowing them to have a big military. This isn't imperialism; it's just self-defense from actual imperialists!

我不认为日本的“反帝国主义”宪法不允许他们拥有庞大的军队。这不是帝国主义;这只是保护自身免于真正的帝国主义者侵略的自卫行为!

TracerBooty 
Japan has a history of war and imperialism (mostly during World war 1 and 2 period since before then they were too busy fighting themselves.
Now dont get me wrong, Im not saying Japan is not different now, they most definitely are, but I doubt anyone in the area would have great interest in a militarized Japan (although that is not taking into consideration what Japan wants)

日本有战争和帝国主义的历史(主要是在第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战期间，那时他们忙于打仗。)
现在不要误解我的意思，我不是说日本现在没有什么不同，他们肯定是不同的，但是我怀疑这个地区的任何一个人都不会对军事化的日本有很大的兴趣(尽管这并没有考虑到日本想要什么)

LiveForPanda 
Japan has a record of attempting / successfully invading Korea and China multiple times in history. Japan is an island nation that has a need to expand.

日本在历史上多次尝试/成功入侵朝鲜和中国。日本是一个需要扩张的岛国。

gpuuhs 
China and Korea also have histories of attempting to invade japan. Nice try.

中国和韩国也有侵略日本的历史。不错的尝试。

Madbrad
Korea was largely unsuccessful, and China is using it's military to exert power over regional countries - something that Japan can't exactly do because of the lack of their military.

朝鲜在很大程度上是不成功的，而中国正在利用它的军事力量来对区域内国家施加影响——这是日本无法做到的，因为他们缺乏军事力量。

DMKavidelly 
Japan becoming militant must be making SE Asia nervous. I suspect they'll suck it up because China is making them ALL a bit trigger happy .

日本成为激进分子必会让东南亚国家感到紧张。我怀疑他们会把事情搞糟，因为中国正在让他们有点高兴。

sovietskaya 
they just need to build a few more aircraft carriers, i mean, “helicopter” carriers

他们只需要建造更多的航空母舰，我的意思是，“直升机”航母。

TheTT 
I think they are classified as oversized flat-deck destroyers now. The largest frigate in the world right now is a german destroyer that they dont dare to call that.

我认为它们现在被归类为超大的驱逐舰平台。目前世界上最大的护卫舰是一艘德国驱逐舰，他们都不敢称之为“直升机”航母。

wakka-wakka-wakka 
If you're going to be tongue in cheek, at least do it right. They're designated "helicopter destroyers". Removing the word carrier is the whole point.

如果你是在挖苦，至少表述准确。他们被认定为“直升机驱逐舰”。去掉“航母”这个词才是重点。

TracerBooty 
Wait, why are they not called carriers anymore? Is that not what they do? Carry planes?

等等，为什么他们不再被称为航母了?这不就是他们所做的吗?携带飞机?

SGTBookWorm 
The helicopter destroyers are primarily for anti-submarine warfare. It gets controversial because they look like aircraft carriers and because the Japanese government is looking at converting the Izumo-class into actual light aircraft carriers. Or "Aviation Destroyers"

直升机驱逐舰主要用于反潜战。这引起了争议，因为它们看起来像航空母舰，因为日本政府正在考虑将“出云号”级准航母变成真正的轻型航空母舰。或“航空驱逐舰”

TracerBooty 
Ahhh, so theyre not actually the same as aircraft carriers? do they carry helicopters then instead?

啊，所以它们和航空母舰不一样吗?他们会改成携带直升机吗?

SGTBookWorm 
Aircraft carrier implies fixed wing aircraft like fighters. Japans ships currently only carry helicopters.

航空母舰意味着固定翼飞机，如战斗机。日本这些战舰目前只装载直升机。

IXquick111 
Yes, currently they only carry helicopters. However with the introduction of the F-35B, they could convert over to a fixed wing air detachment, and effectively become carriers. They wouldn't have quite the same capability as conventional aircraft carriers, and certainly the Nimitz- or Ford- classes, but they would be highly capable, and in fact more capable than anything China currently has deployed (though obviously the Chinese are working on building their own "real" carrier)

是的，目前他们只携带直升机。然而，随着F-35B的引入，他们可以转换成固定翼航空支队，并有效地转变成为航母。他们不会拥有像传统的航空母舰那样一样的能力，当然也不会有尼米兹级或福特级航母的能力，但是他们会有非常强大的能力，而且事实上比中国目前部署的任何东西都更强力(尽管很明显，中国人正在努力建造他们自己的“真正的”航母)

elruary 
We need more allies can we stop this restraint on Japan. We iz cool with those boys. Let them evolve some wings of their own.

我们需要更多的盟友，我们是否能解除日本的这种克制。我们和那些男孩相处得很好。让他们自己进化出一些翅膀。

SGTBookWorm 
Japan already has the 4th largest navy in the world. They don't really need carriers.

日本已经拥有世界第四大海军。他们不是真的需要航母。

Spartan
To be fair, those carriers are indeed to small to launch and recover anything without V/STOL capability. Which is exactly why the Japanese want a jump jet.

公平地说，这些航空母舰确实是太小了，除了垂直短距起落飞机他们不能发射和收回任何东西。这正是日本人想要一种垂直短距起落飞机的原因。

justanotherreddituse 
Th F35-B say shello.

Th F35-B 在招手

threebellies 
Man, using terminology like V/STOL makes you military guys seem cool. 
But for us normies, can you state things that way so most understand them?

伙计，用V/STOL（垂直/短距起落）这样的术语会让你看起来很酷。
但是对于我们这些普通人，你能以最能让人了解的方式描述事情吗?

Spartan
V/STOL is military speak for Vertical/Short TakeOff and Landing. The reason you make the difference between Vertical and Short is because with... pretty much every navy that isn't the US, two main types of carrier aircraft have emerged.
Your Harriers and F-35s, fighters that can hover, are your Vertical TakeOff and Landing aircraft. They can take off and land like a helicopter, and transition into level flight like a tiltrotor, while having the fighting capabilities of a fixed-wing jet. By virtue of being VTOL aircraft, most of them technically qualify as STOL aircraft as well, hence why you have V/STOL (pronounced Vee-Stole).
Speaking of STOL, that stands for Short TakeOff and Landing, which is what everyone who isn't the US or Britain uses (the US because they can still afford to build full-sized carriers and a lot of them Britain because they had the Harrier until recently). Basically, the line of reasoning is that aircraft carriers are extremely important for any modern seafaring military... but they also cost fuckhuge amounts of money and resources to produce. The easy solution to this would be to just build smaller carriers, but you can only go so small before you end up in a situation where your planes don't have enough room to either take off, land, or both. And while you can get around this by adding in a catapult system to your aircraft carriers (as the French did with the Charles de Gaulle)... those systems are incredibly complex if you don't have the technical competence for it, and can be expensive enough on their own to offset the cost of using conventional power over nuclear power, AND the cost of simply making a smaller ship.
The solution was to build very light aircraft with powerful engines and therefore very good thrust-to-weight ratios  that could therefore reach takeoff speed much more quickly, and slow to a stop much more quickly. As a result, nations could spend much less resources building smaller light carriers, usually around 250~300 meters in length, compared to American standard fleet carriers which routinely make well over 300 meters in length, such as the new Gerald R. Ford class carriers which make over 330 meters in length.
This, by the way, is how the Japanese are able to get around their restrictions on aircraft carriers, as their carriers are indeed too short for even STOL aircraft, coming in at under 200 meters in length. At this length, it's questionable if even a catapult would help get aircraft off the deck.

V/STOL是一个军事术语，意思是垂直/短距起落。你之所以在垂直和短之间有所区分是因为……几乎每一支非美国的海军，都可分为两种主要类型的航母。

你们的鹞式战斗机还有f -35战机，这两种可以盘旋的战斗机，就是你们的VTOL垂直起降飞机。他们可以像直升飞机一样起飞和降落，并像一架倾转旋翼机那样过渡到水平飞行，同时拥有固定翼飞机的战斗能力。由于是垂直起降飞机，它们中的大多数在技术上有资格成为短距起落飞机，因此为什么你们有V/STOL。

说到 STOL短距起降，它代表的是短距起飞和降落，这是所有不是美国或英国的人使用的(美国是因为他们仍有能力建造全尺寸的航空母舰并建造许多艘，英国是因为他们直到最近有了了“Harrier”鹞式战斗机)。从根本上说，航空母舰对于任何现代的航海军事来说都是极其重要的。但要制造它们也需要花费大量的金钱和资源。简单的解决办法是建造较小的航空母舰，但是在你的飞机没有足够的空间起飞、降落或者两者都没有的情况下，你只能建造的这么大小。你可以通过在航空母舰上添加一个弹射系统来解决这个问题(就像法国人对夏尔·戴高乐航母的做法)……如果你没有技术能力，这些系统会非常的复杂，而且昂贵到足以抵消使用常规能源而非核能的成本，以及制造一艘小点的战舰的成本。

解决方案是制造具有强大引擎的超轻型飞机,并因此获得很好的推重比,可以达到更快的起飞速度,更快减速到停止。因此，各国可以花费更少的资源建造更小的轻型航母，通常长度约为250~300米，而美国标准舰队的长度通常超过300米，比如新的福特级航母，其长度就超过了330米。

顺便说一下，这就是日本人如何能够绕过他们对航空母舰的限制，因为他们的航空母舰确实太短了，连垂直/短距起落飞机要求的200米都不到。以这个长度，即使是弹射器能不能帮助飞机从甲板上起飞也是值得怀疑的。

i_already_forgot 
Those helicopter carriers can only carry about 10 planes or so if the upgrade was ever made. It's not a lot of planes. The current function of those carriers, anti submarine duty, is actually kind of necessary so they're better off getting real carriers.

如果升级完成，那些直升机航母只能携带大约10架左右的飞机。不是很多的飞机。这些航空母舰的当前功能是反潜艇任务，这实际上是必要的，所以他们最好能得到真正的航母。

SGTBookWorm  
You're probably thinking of the smaller Hyuuga-class. The Izumo-class is about the same size as an America-class LHA, which can carry around 20 F-35Bs in its light carrier configuration. The Izumo's were also apparently designed from the start to be easy to conver into lught carriers in a similar style to just about every carrier nation except the US and France.

你可能想的是更小的朝日级驱逐舰。出云级驱逐舰与美国的LHA级差不多大，以它的轻型航母配置，它可以携带近20架f - 35b的轻型航母。出云号的设计也很明显，很容易改装成轻型航母，这种风格很类似于除美国和法国之外的所有航母国家。

lordderplythethird  
ASW (anti-submarine warfare) carriers are a far bigger need for Japan than most seem to understand.
Japan has more ASW aircraft than the rest of the world combined (minus the US) because of where they are.
They're an islands nation with nearby rivals in China, North Korea, Russia, and to a far lesser extent South Korea. That gives some 200 non-allied submarines in the waters surrounding Japan.
ASW flights can occur off traditional runways on the islands, such as what occurs with the P-3s and the P-1s replacing them. However, they're incredibly expensive (around 5x the cost of an ASW helicopter). So you offset them with far cheaper ASW helicopters. ASW helicopters don't have the range a fixed wing aircraft like the P-1 does, but with a ship, you negate that disadvantage. That allows one to effectively put 25 ASW helicopters in the air anywhere in the world, vs 4-5 fixed wings like the P-1.
P-1s are the better platform for hunting submarines don't get me wrong, but there's also a strength in numbers, particularly when over half of those 200 submarines are seemingly ancient and incredibly noisy (essentially all of DPRK's submarines, and a good amount of China's as well) to where an ASW helo is more than enough for the job.
Neutralizing submarines negates the seemingly biggest advantage the PLAN has, leaves DPRK with only long range missiles to attack Japan, and deters any sort of naval threat from Russia.

日本对反潜艇战(反潜战)的需求远比大多数人所理解的要大得多。

日本拥有的鹗式运输机（驱逐舰上的反潜战机）比世界上其他国家加起来还要多(不包括美国)，这是因为日本的地理位置。
日本是位于中国、朝鲜、俄罗斯和韩国附近的一个岛屿国家。这使得日本周围海域有大约200艘非盟国的潜艇。

ASW直升机可以在岛屿上的传统跑道上起飞，P-3s和p -1是取代它们的。然而，这两种飞机都非常昂贵(大约5倍于ASW直升机的成本)。所以你用更便宜的ASW直升机来替代它们。ASW直升机没有像P-1那样的固定翼，但是有了船，你就可以抵消它的缺点。这使得一个国家可以有效地在世界上任何地方起飞25架ASW直升机，而像P-1那样的固定机翼你只能布置四五驾。

p - 1是搜索潜艇的更好平台。别误会我,但是数量也是一种力量,特别是当那200艘潜艇中超过半数是看起来很古老的且噪声很大的那种潜艇时(基本上所有的朝鲜潜艇,和大量的中国潜艇都是如此),一架ASW反潜直升机就足以胜任这项工作了。
这就中和了潜艇这一中国解放军海军的最大优势，使朝鲜只能使用远程导弹攻击日本，并阻止任何来自俄罗斯的海上威胁。

Spartan
Their constitution explicitly forbids them from possessing offensive weapons, and aircraft carriers are I believe stated to be as such in that same article. They can get away with the helicopter carriers because at under 200m length, nothing that can't take off vertically is getting off the deck of those things any time soon. But a fully functioning aircraft carrier? The only thing more politically disastrous for Japan would be developing a nuclear weapons program, and while a carrier program will be bad enough domestically, it would be significantly worse internationally, where much of Asia still views the Japanese carrier fleet as a symbol of oppression and genocide perpetuated by Japan. The only way it would be acceptable would be if the US were to come in ahead of time in a sort of South Pacific Treaty Alliance type deal and say "we've obtained secret intelligence that the Chinese are planning to fuck up all your shit, and you all need aircraft carriers NOW, even Japan, since ours aren't enough on their own". Short of the US admitting that it cannot adequately protect Southeast Asia on its own, any attempt by Japan to develop a true aircraft carrier would be met with sanctions and regional if not international isolation.

他们的宪法明确禁止他们拥有攻击性武器，我认为航空母舰也是其中明令禁止拥有的。他们可以拥有直升机航母，因为在200米的长度下，任何不能垂直起飞的东西很快就会消失在这些东西的甲板上。但是一艘功能齐全的航空母舰?对日本而言唯一更具政治灾难性的是日本发展核武器计划,而当航母计划把日本国内搞乱时,其国际也将明显恶化,亚洲大部分地区仍将日本的航母舰队象征着压迫和种族灭绝,日本。唯一可以接受的方法是如果美国有提前签署类似南太平洋联盟条约一类的协议,并说“我们已经获得了秘密情报,中国正计划攻击你们,你们现在都需要航母,甚至日本也需要,因为光靠我们自己是不够的”。除了美国承认自己无法充分保护东南亚之外，日本开发真正航空母舰的任何企图都将受到制裁和地区性孤立，甚至是国际性孤立。

DirtysMan 
We can actually defend them though. Our navy would beat every other navy combined.

我们可以保护他们。我们的海军将打败其他所有海军的联合。

Spartan
Exactly. Which is why Japan will never have a full-size aircraft carrier. There's no situation in which they could justify having it.

完全正确。这就是为什么日本永远不会有一艘全尺寸航空母舰。没有任何情况可以证明他们可以拥有它。

IXquick111 
I wouldn't be so sure of that. The Japanese are inching very close toward changing their constitution, and the capability of the United States to defend the Western Pacific might be very different in 20 years than it is now. The Japanese (along with the South Koreans) are aware of this, and would plan accordingly if they saw the need.

我不太确定。日本人正在逐渐修改他们的宪法，而美国保护西太平洋的能力在20年内可能与现在完全不同。日本人(和韩国人一样)意识到了这一点，如果他们看到了需要，他们也会做出相应的计划。

handmonster
Indeed, and as an American I also want our allies to be taking a greater role in their own self defense. We are carrying too much of the burden already.

的确，作为一个美国人，我也希望我们的盟友在自己的防御中发挥更大的作用。我们已经承担了太多的负担。

handmonster
I would want my island nation to be defended by an aircraft carrier. It would be bad to let your adversaries have a bunch but insist that you can't have any.

我希望我的岛国能得到航空母舰的保护。让你的对手拥有一堆但坚持让你不能拥有是不好的。

Spartan
Yes well unfortunately for Japan that's what you get when you decide the best use of your resources is to go around raping, pillaging, and generally committing genocide against the entire Southeast Asian region.

是的，不幸的是，对于日本来说，当你决定最好地利用你的资源的时候，你就会去掠夺，掠夺，并常常对整个东南亚地区进行种族灭绝。

handmonster
That was World War 2. Should Germany and Italy also be prevented from having militaries? Because we're actually trying to get them to step up their role so the US doesn't have to carry all the burden.

那是第二次世界大战。德国和意大利也应该被阻止拥有军队吗?因为我们实际上是想让他们提升自己所负责的角色，这样美国就不必承担所有的负担。

DirtysMan 
Germany's military is also nearly non-existent for the same reason.

出于同样的原因，德国军队也几乎不存在。

lordderplythethird 
US simply exploits the situation for its own geopolitical interests... it didn't cause the tension that's existed for well over a century.

美国只是为了自身的地缘政治利益而利用这种情况……它并不是造成这一个多世纪以来一直存在的紧张局势的原因所在。

trustyhardware 
The "tension" was non-existent pre-2000s, with China giving up war reparations, importing Japanese goods and Japan investing huge amounts in China. I know because my family moved from China to Japan during that time. The extreme tension we East Asians experienced since 2000s has been manufactured by US. Frankly, I don't care if it exploits the situation for its own geopolitical interests. I expect it to. But if so, don't sextively apply "democracy and human rights" with American characteristics.

这种“紧张”局势在21世纪前并不存在，中国放弃战争赔款，进口日本商品，日本在中国大举投资。我知道，因为我的家人在那段时间从中国搬到了日本。我们东亚人自本世纪头十年以来所经历的极度紧张是由美国制造的。坦率地说，我不在乎美国是否会利用这种情况来满足自己的地缘政治利益。我拭目以待。但如果是这样的话，就不要选择性地使用美国特色的“民主和人权”。

ShuckleFukle 
Release the Gundams!

释放高达!

GunaKoren 
Scary.

好吓人。

Patong_Pirate
China needs to back off.

中国需要退避。

[dexed] 
But this also pisses off South Korea, a US ally.

但这也激怒了美国的盟友韩国。

XenosisReaper 
No it doesn't.
Japan, South Korea, India and Australia have a semi-official naval alliance against Chinese encroachment in the area.

不,不会。
日本、韩国、印度和澳大利亚有一个半官方的海军联盟，以反对中国对该地区的侵占。

klfta
it will, Japan is literally the least liked country in SK. On a side note, they are also one of the most disliked by NK, not that people really care about the opinion of NK, but with SK and NK relations warming, an expanding Japanese military will probably push both Korea closer to China.

会，日本是韩国最不喜欢的国家。旁注：他们也是最不喜欢朝鲜的国家之一,人们真正关心的不是朝鲜的意见,但随着朝鲜和和韩国关系变暖,日本军事扩张可能会推动朝鲜和韩国向中国靠拢。

XenosisReaper  
No, they're both part of the US hegemony in the China Sea.

不，它们都是美国在中国海上的霸权的一部分。

klfta 
doesn't mean they like each other rofl

这并不意味着他们喜欢彼此。

Megustoelbertolucci 
Yes it does.
South Korea actually protests against Japanese military expansion (as in funding and assets) because Japan hasn't got a good record on acknowledging the stuff and crimes they did back in the WW2.

的确是的。
韩国实际上抗议日本的军事扩张(在资金和资产方面)，因为日本在承认他们在二战中所犯下的罪行和恶行方面没有很好的记录。

Zazael 
Why would you need marines? Unless you have to invade somewhere by sea.

你为什么需要海军陆战队?除非你必须通过海上入侵什么地方。

Laughablybored 
They are actually building up their defenses. They won't attack China. They will wait for China to make a grave mistake by shooting down one of Japan's fighters, at which point the armada the Americans have been building up in the pacific would have no choice but to help an ally.
Why do you think China has been focusing so strongly on their navy? They have been expecting this to happen for decades. Are building militarized islands to extend their reach away from their mainland.
This doesn't end well for anyone involved.

他们实际上是在加强防御。他们不会攻击中国。他们将等待中国犯下严重的错误，击落日本的一架战斗机，到那时，美国在太平洋上打造的舰队将别无选择，只能帮助盟友。

你认为中国为什么一直如此强烈地关注他们的海军?他们已经期待这种情况几十年了。他们正在建设军事化的岛屿，以扩张他们的军力投射离岸距离。
这对任何相关方来说都不是好事。

dawumao 
You guys really overestimate Japan, they had been nothing throughout East Asia's history until late 19th century due to Manchurian Qing dynasty of China refused the industrialization foolishly. As long as China is industrialized, Japan stands no chance in front of China. There's no need to worry about a country with extremely aging population, low birth rate and otaku boys.

你们真的高估了日本，他们在东亚的历史上一直都毫无存在感，直到19世纪末，中国清朝愚蠢地拒绝工业化。只要中国工业化完成，日本就不会有机会在中国面前出现。没有必要担心一个人口极度老龄化、出生率低和御宅男孩的国家。

space_hitler  
So wait, are you just ignoring the fact that Japan was so powerful and industrialized during wwII that they conquered and occupied China?

等等，你是不是忽略了一个事实，日本在二战中是如此的强大和工业化以至于他们征服并占领了中国?

Desc3nt
Sure they occupied some parts of China, but they didn't "conquer" China. It was only Japan's navy that was powerful, their armies only saw success in the early part of the war due to China being in a civil war and many other reasons that crippled their country.

他们确实占领了中国的一些地方，但是他们并没有“征服”中国。日本当时只是海军力量强大，他们的军队在战争初期才取得了些成功，因为当时中国处于内战，还有许多其他的原因使他们的国家陷入了瘫痪。

BebopRocksteady
are you serious with this comment.. what a joke

你的评论是认真的吗?开什么玩笑

Desc3nt 
Well, which part of my comment do you think is untrue?
I know it's currently trendy to be anti-China and you seem fixated on saying negative things about China but let's not divert from the fact that the Chinese held their ground and fought to the bitter end.

你认为我的评论中哪一部分是不真实的?
我知道现在反对中国是很时髦的，你似乎对中国的负面言论很关注，但我们不要偏离中国坚持立场，并为之奋斗的事实。

phoenixmusicman 
And China was incredibly fragmented politically at the time. It was almost like 2 different countries. And even with that China was never fully taken.

当时中国在政治上四分五裂。它几乎像是两个不同的国家。即便如此，中国也从未被完全占领。

Desc3nt 
I agree that the Japanese were ultimately defeated by Soviet and US forces but the topic on hand was about the conquest and occupation of China which the Japanese did indeed fail at, it was mainly due to Chinese forces' stubborn resistance and of course along with the aid of foreign support.

我同意,日本最终被苏联和美国军队击败,但现在讨论的话题是关于日本当时对中国的征服和占领，那确实是失败了,这主要是由于中国军队顽强的抵抗,当然还有外国的支援协助。