原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.5m4n.com 翻译:云飞扬h 转载请注明出处

The Pentagon’s new nuclear doctrine is scary as hell

The Pentagon is actively contemplating the use of nuclear weapons to win wars that need not be fought in the first place. As expected, opposition to the US nuclear doctrine is almost non-existent in the mainstream media.

五角大楼正在积极考虑使用核武器来赢得根本不需要打的战争。不出所料,主流媒体几乎不反对美国的核原则。

It used to be the case that the idea of using nuclear weapons in a real-world conflict was such a taboo idea that no one was ever openly to contemplate it. We need only look back to the end of World War II to realize how catastrophic and harmful nuclear weapons can be on civilian populations; yet we shouldn’t have had the blueprint of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to know that the use of nuclear weapons would be a frightening and criminal act. They are deadly and unnecessary, end of story. You can all save me the cliched response “But they ended a war.”

过去的情况是,在现实世界的冲突中使用核武器是一个禁忌的想法,从来没有人公开考虑过。我们只需要回顾第二次世界大战结束时的情况,就能认识到核武器对平民百姓可能造成多么灾难性和有害的影响;然而,我们不应该看到长崎和广岛的蓝图,知道使用核武器将是一种可怕的犯罪行为。他们是致命的和不必要的,故事的结尾。你们都可以避免我的陈词滥调:“但他们结束了一场战争。”



“Nuclear weapon capabilities constitute a vital element of national defense,” the document states. “Nuclear operations are those activities within the range of military operations, to include deterrence, crisis response, strike assessment and return to stability.”

“核武器能力是国防的重要组成部分,”该文件说。“核行动是军事行动范围内的活动,包括威慑、危机应对、打击评估和恢复稳定。”

The Pentagon apparently believes that it is “necessary” and “prudent” to “preplan nuclear employment options for contingencies prior to a crisis,” which includes “a means to assess the anticipated effectiveness of options prior to execution,” as well as a “means to assess the nature and extent of unintended consequences.”

五角大楼显然认为,“为危机前的突发事件预先规划核方案”是“必要的”和“谨慎的”,其中包括“在执行之前评估方案预期有效性的手段”,以及“评估意外后果的性质和程度的手段”。

Having executed an option, the US military is unlikely to stop there. According to the document, “planning and operations must not assume use in isolation but must plan for strike integration into the overall scheme of fires.” The document also states that “there may be a requirement to strike additional (follow on and/or emerging) targets in support of war termination or other strategic obxtives.” Commanders must “maintain the capability to rapidly identify and strike previously unidentified or newly emerging targets.”

在执行了一个选项后,美国军方不太可能就此打住。根据该文件,“规划和运营不得孤立进行,但必须计划将打击纳入整个火力计划。该文件还指出,“可能需要打击额外的(后续和/或正在出现的)目标,以支持战争结束或其他战略目标。”指挥官必须“保持快速识别和打击此前未确认或新出现目标的能力。”



The urge to deploy the use of nuclear weapons only makes sense if you live in a world in which you must always be prepared to win a war against every potential adversary. Americans amongst you reading this may be thinking: “Yeah, so what?” But take it from the rest of us who don’t wake up every morning swearing allegiance to a flag that to many others represents death and destruction, that winning wars tends to be less of a focus when compared to other issues such as healthcare, housing, climate change, and the list goes on.

如果你生活在一个你必须随时准备赢得对抗每一个潜在对手的战争的世界,那么部署使用核武器的冲动才有意义。你读这篇文章的美国人可能在想:“ 是的,那是又怎么样?[size=15.0015px]“但是,从我们其他人每天早上醒来宣誓效忠于其他许多人代表死亡和毁灭的旗帜(美国国旗),与其他问题(如医疗保健)相比,赢得战争往往不那么重要了。住房,气候变化,名单还在继续。

Perhaps if the US gave up on the idea that it needs to fight wars in order to predicate its survival in the first place, it wouldn’t need to contemplate such a catastrophic doctrine.

或许,如果美国放弃了一开始就需要打一场战争才能生存的想法,它就不需要考虑这样一个灾难性的学说。

Prosecuting wars on this basis also assumes that these wars are unavoidable and must be fought. In hindsight, did the wars in Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and co., really need to be fought? Will the wars the US cooks up in the next few decades similarly and inescapably need to be fought? (Not to mention that, if we are being honest, the US military has barely won a war since World War II anyway.)

在此基础上进行战争,也是假定这些战争是不可避免的,必须打。事后看来,越南、利比亚、伊拉克、也门等国的战争真的需要打吗?美国在未来几十年里策划的战争,是否是类似的、不可避免的战争?(更不用说,老实说,自二战以来,美军几乎没有赢得过一场战争。)

Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, every US artillery unit in Europe was nuclear-ready. Post-1991, this had supposedly all changed. However, a recently released (and then amended) document published by a NATO affiliated body has finally admitted what we all suspected anyway: that American nukes are being stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey (approximately 150 in total).

在柏林墙倒塌之前,美国在欧洲的每一个炮兵部队都做好了核准备。1991年后,这一切按理说都变了。然而,最近由北约附属机构发布的一份文件(后来经过修改)终于确认了我们所有人的怀疑:美国的核武器储存在比利时、德国、意大利、荷兰和土耳其(总共大约150枚)。



Whoever pulls the trigger on this nuclear holocaust will ultimately bear the blame for what’s to come, but in my estimation, history (what’s remaining of it anyway) will recall the recklessness of the Trump administration and those administrations that served the American empire before it.

无论谁挑起这场核浩劫,最终都要为即将发生的一切承担责任,但在我看来,历史(不管怎么说,还有剩下的历史)会让我想起特朗普政府以及之前为美利坚帝国服务的那些政府的鲁莽。