【世界网友】军事：各国网民讨论中国未来50年里的六场战争

在最近的一篇文章中，我介绍了一本名字叫做《中国不怕》的中华人民共和国的新书—— 国防安全新威胁与我们的应对战略。 我认为该书体现了解放军振兴战略的一部分，提升国内的士气，包括军事和其他方面，同时也是向那些试图掣肘中国的外国势力发出警告。这一分析也许能扩展至另外两样以解放军为创作灵感的作品上，一部电影和另一篇新闻社的文章，以探索这些作品身上所代表的一些议程或动向。

The Chinese film Silent Contest (较量无声) was controversial as soon as it appeared on Chinese and global websites in October. By the end of that month, the film was being deleted from PRC websites without any official pronouncements as to the reasons for its appearance or disappearance. The film is still available in various iterations (video) on YouTube.

中国电影《较量无声》10月份一出现在中国以及全球的网站上时，就引起了争议。10月末，这部电影就被从中国网站上删除掉了，而对于该部作品的出现或消失，没有任何官方解释。目前Youtube上仍旧能观看这部电影的各种版本。

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

Highly polemical, and set against a rousing soundtrack, the film suggests that the United States is trying to subvert China through five avenues: (1) undermining China politically, (2) engaging in cultural infiltration, (3) wa***re in terms of ideas, (4) the training of fifth column agents and (5) the fostering of opposition forces within China. The overall message is that the United States seeks not simply to dismember China but aims to find ways to take it under control. Frank Ching notes a strong anti-Hong Kong democrat aspect in the film, amid an implicit fear that a Hong Kong–Taiwan–US alliance could destabilize the PRC. The film’s intended audiences are certainly the domestic military and civilian constituencies, and it aims to be rousing and to induce indignity and anger. Reactions within China have varied (video), from the obviously supportive to the derisory.

带着极具有争论性的内容以及激动人心的配乐，这部电影暗示美国试图从五个方面颠覆中国：1、政治上破坏中国；2、文化上渗透中国；3、挑起战争；4、培养第五纵队；5、培养中国国内的反对势力。其传达的完整的信息就是，美国不仅旨在肢解中国，同时还在寻求控制中国的方法。秦家聪在这部电影中，指出了有一股强势的反香港民主势力，其中 隐约地表达了对于香港-台湾-美国联盟将破坏中华人民共和国的担心。电影主要面向的观众肯定是国内军事人员或民众，电影旨在唤醒及诱发（人民的）屈辱感和愤怒情绪。从少得可怜的支持率来看，中国国内有着各种不同的反应。

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

The PLA was intimately involved in the *** of the film. More specifically, the National Defence University, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, which is subordinate to the Ministry of State Security, participated in the production of the film earlier this year. Without doubt, it is a reaction to the US ‘pivot’ to Asia and the increased American engagement with the region since 2011, but obviously has deeper roots. With such a range of august national institutions being involved in the production of the film, it might be suggested that the rather extreme sentiments expressed therein are not restricted to some hawkish elements in the PLA.

中国人民解放军深入地参与了这部电影的创作。更确切地说，隶属于国家安全部的国防大学、中国社会科学院和中国现代国际关系研究所 ，在今年早些时候，参加了影片的制作。毋庸置疑，这是（中国）对2011年以来，美国重返亚洲轴心，增加美国与该地区的联系这些做法的一种回应，但显然其还有更深一层的意思。随着这么多严肃的国家机构参与电影的制作，它暗示着，这些极端情绪的表达可能不仅仅局限于中国人民解放军的鹰派。

A more troubling example of irredentism can be seen in an article which appeared on the website of the Chinese news agency Zhongguo Xinwenshe (Chinese, English translation here) in July this year. Entitled ‘Revealing the Six Wars China Must Fight in the Coming 50 Years’ (曝光中国在未来50年里必打的六场战争), the article is another manifestation of the hyper-nationalist attitude seen within some parts of the PLA. However, that an article of this nature was carried by a PRC national news agency suggests that it was approved at a very high level.

民族统一主义的一个更令人不安的例子可以体现在一篇文章里。这篇文章于今年7月发表在一家中国新闻机构（中国新闻社）的网站上。文章名字叫做《 曝光中国在未来50年里必打的六场战争》。本文是部分解放军表达出来的超民族主义态度的另一种表现形式。然而，这样一种性质的文章由中华人民共和国国家通讯社刊载出来，表明它被放在一个非常高的层次上。

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

The six ‘inevitable’ wars suggested in the article’s title are presented in the chronological order in which they will take place:

文章中提到的这六场“不可避免”的战争，按照时间顺序列表如下：

The war to unify Taiwan (2020–2025)
The war to recover the various islands of the South China Sea (2025–2030)
The war to recover southern Tibet (2035–2040)
The war to recover Diaoyutai and the Ryukyus (2040–2045)
The war to unify Outer Mongolia (2045–2050)
The war to recover the territory seized by Russia (2055–2060)

统一台湾之战 (2020–2025)
夺回南海各岛屿之战 (2025–2030)
夺回藏南之战 (2035–2040)
夺回钓鱼岛和琉璃群岛之战 (2040–2045)
统一外蒙之战 (2045–2050)
夺回俄占领土之战 (2055–2060)

Claims to Taiwan have been a part of PRC policy since 1949, and military action has never been ruled out, but a specific timetable for such action has never been suggested. In a remarkable coincidence, the Taiwan military has just announced that the PRC will have the military capacity to take Taiwan by 2020. In terms of a South China Sea war, little imagination is needed to see the current argy-bargy in the region extending into a military conflict. Regarding the third proposed war, China’s claims to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh (PDF) have been a thorn in China-India relations for decades, but the extent of Chinese claims over Tibetan cultural areas in the Himalayas remains unspecified.

自从1949年以来，对台湾的主权要求一直是中华人民共和国政策的一部分，且从未排除为此采取武力的可能性，但实施该项行动的具体时间却从未被提出来过。而惊人的巧合是，台湾军方刚刚宣布，到2020年中华人民共和国军方将有能力夺下台湾。而在南海之战中，不难想象，目前这种讨价还价的形式将转变为军事冲突。关于第三场战争，中国对印度阿鲁纳恰尔邦的主权要求，几十年来，对于中印关系一直如鲠在喉。但中国对于喜马拉雅山脉藏族地区的主权要求仍旧没有详细说明范围。

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

Claims to Diaoyutai/Senkaku have filled the press of late, so again little creative power is needed to see this situation descending into war. China’s very recent declaration of a ‘maritime air defense zone’ will also certainly exacerbate tensions. Regarding the Ryukyus (the Okinawa island chain), Chinese scholars were seeking the ‘return’ of these islands to China in the 1920s, so this certainly isn’t a new claim. Meanwhile, Chinese claims to what’s today the nation of Mongolia derive from Qing dynasty control of this region and again have been part of Chinese territorial claims since the Republic of China was established in 1912. The same is true of the Russian Far East territories, which many Chinese see as having been unjustly occupied by the Russians.

（中国）对钓鱼岛/尖阁列岛的主权要求最近充斥于各大媒体，因此也不难想象这种形式会演变为战争。中国最近宣布的“海上防空区”也肯定会加剧局势的 紧张程度。关于琉球(冲绳列岛)，中国学者在1920年代就寻求这些岛屿的“回归”，因此这显然不算一个新说法了。同时，中国对于蒙古提出主权要求，认为该区域从清朝开始就处于中国的控制之下，且再次被1912年成立的中华民国的纳入领土范围。俄罗斯远东地区亦是如此，很多中国人认为这些地方一直处于俄罗斯的占领之下。

None of the above wars are endorsed by current PRC policies, and some Chinese claim that the article represents only the views of radical hyper-nationalists. However, the claims to territories which this article avers need to be ‘recovered’ through wa***re are long-standing and are remarkably congruent with a 1938 map of ‘China’s shame’ authorised by the Ministry of the Interior of the Republican *** which shows the areas torn from China by imperialists—European and Japanese. (See map below) The ‘lost’ Chinese territories on this map include not only the Russian Far East, the Ryukyus, Taiwan and the South China Sea, but also Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, the Malay Peninsula and Singapore, Myanmar, Nepal, parts of Pakistan and most of Central Asia.】

以上描述的各场战争均未获得中华人民共和国的政策支持，且一些中国人宣称这篇文章代表的仅仅是一些极端的超民族主义者们的观点。然而，文中所提及的这些需要通过战争“夺回”的领土的主权要求是长期存在的，且与1938年得到共和国授权的“中国之耻”的地图非常一致。这份地图展示了那些被欧洲及日本帝国主义从中国分裂出去的领土（图示如下）。在这张地图上，“丢失”的中国领土不仅仅包括俄罗斯远东地区、琉球群岛、台湾和南海，还包括朝鲜、越南、柬埔寨、老挝、泰国、马来半岛和新加坡、缅甸、尼泊尔、部分巴基斯坦地区和大部分中亚地区。

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------



（附链接，文章引用自澳大利亚网站：http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chinas-six-wars-in-the-next-50-years/）

So lets recap a little, the Taiwan as well as the United States military has announced that the PRC will have the military capacity to take Taiwan by 2020 regardless of if the US and her ally's (japan, Australia etc.) try and intervene. So as time goes on China could become a real threat and if it wanted to, it could in theory go to these wars and win because they are surrounded by economically smaller and militarily insignificance country (excluding Russia and Japan).

因此我们再重申一下，台湾以及美国军方宣布，到2020年，无论美国及其盟友（日本、澳大利亚等）是否进行干预，中华人民共和国都有武力收回台湾的能力。因此，随着时间的推移，如果她想的话，中国将变成一个真正的威胁，理论上说，她都有能力去发动并赢得这些战争，因为她周围都是些经济或军事弱国（包括俄罗斯和日本）。
评论翻译:
-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

Akuma

sorry, but thats laughable...and was posted before.
Are we talking about the same China that never won a war against foreign powers in all of its history?
Whenever China fought wars against foreign powers, those foreign powers ended in marching through Beijing. At one time even Tibet conquered Beijing...

对不起，但是这太搞笑了。。并且之前已经有人这么说过啦。
我们谈论的是同一次元里面的中国么？那个在其整个历史中，没有打赢过一次外国势力的中国么？每当中国与外国势力交战，最终都已这些外国势力踏足北京结束。有一次，甚至连西藏都征服了北京。。。。

Rei Murasame
Wow. The PRC itself doesn't even believe that is possible. I don't see any reason to worry about them even attempting this.

喔噢。连中国自己都不会相信这是可能的。即使我想，我也找不到任何理由担心他们。

Eauz
The problem with direct wa***re to claim ownership over a piece of land in the modern world is that there are now much easier ways to support resistance groups, than in the past. Added to this is that even if one is successful at overtaking a whole territory (or country), the problem is attempting to create stability within the region, after the war and developing a proper cultural propaganda campaign to assimilate the locals. Iraq & Afghanistan have not really been the most successful changes in power and this was more of a change of political ownership, as opposed to actually claiming ownership over a territory. We are even seeing splinter groups in South Sudan and they were provided their own independence. Even if China attempted one of those wars, they would probably end up with more debt than actual territory. Plus, this wouldn't even take into consideration the influence that the international community would have, such as various forms of sanctions or counter-military actions.

现代世界里，通过战争获得领土主权的问题是，目前比过去更容易支持抵抗组织。考虑到这一点，即使一个国力远超整个地区（或国家）的国家，其问题都在于维护该地区的稳定，在战后，开发适当的文化以同化当地人。伊拉克&阿富汗这两个国家并没有实现最成功的转变，它们进行的仅仅是政治所有权的变化，这与对一块领土宣示主权的情况截然不同。我们甚至可以看看南苏丹的分裂组织，他们自行宣布独立。即使中国打算发动以上战争中的某一场，他们可能得不偿失。另外，这还是在没有考虑国际社会影响的情况下，如各种形式的制裁或反战行动。

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

fuser
This is a *** article.
Just look at the catalogue of the author
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/author/geoff-wade/ :-D
（文章标题为：China’s efforts to break the Australia–US alliance）

这真是篇屎一样的文章。
看看作者的作品目录就知道了
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/author/geoff-wade/ :-D
（文章标题为：中国致力于打破美澳联盟）

Rei Murasame
All of Geoff Wade's articles seem to be about him warning of Chinese aggression on some level. It's almost hysterical.

所有 Geoff Wade 的文章似乎都说明他在某种程度上担心中国的野心。都快歇斯底里了。

Ahovking
（回复Akuma的“sorry, but thats laughable...and was posted before.”）
Are we talking about the same China that never won a war against foreign powers in all of its history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... nd_battles
China has won its share of wars against foreign powers.
（回复Akuma的“Whenever China fought wars against foreign powers, those foreign powers ended in marching through Beijing. At one time even Tibet conquered Beijing...”）
Foreign powers as in the industrial powers against a struggling non-industrial state, yeah it wasn't hard for any industrial powers to walk over any non-industrial state.

（回复： 对不起，但是这太搞笑了。。并且之前已经有人这么说过啦。
我们谈论的是同一次元里面的中国么？那个在其整个历史中，没有打赢过一次外国势力的中国么？ ）
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... nd_battles
（以上链接）中国赢得抗击外国势力的战争

（回复 每当中国与外国势力交战，最终都已这些外国势力踏足北京结束。有一次，甚至连西藏都征服了北京。。。。 ）
工业强国的外国势力对阵苦苦挣扎的非工业国家，是的，任何一个工业大国对付任何非工业国家都是游刃有余的。

Ahovking
（回复Rei Murasame的“Wow. The PRC itself doesn't even believe that is possible. I don't see any reason to worry about them even attempting this.”）
The problem is they properly do, whats interesting is how they could even think they would get away with it.

（回复 喔噢。连中国自己都不会相信这是可能的。即使我想，我也找不到任何理由担心他们。 ）
问题是他们恰当地在做着，让人感兴趣的是，他们怎么会认为他们能侥幸成功。

Akuma
Ahovking...do you call the mongolians industrials? You also call the manchu industrial?

楼上的。。。难道你把蒙古也称为工业大国？你认为满洲也是工业强国么？

-------------译者：猫记-审核者：chen_lt------------

LolitaPlus
（回楼上）
The Mongolian and the Manchu were riders while the Han Chinese were farmers. Those folks were good at riding horses and using bows. Horses are very important to pre-industrial wars not only for the speed they provided but also to trample infantries. The Mongolian beat both The Han Chinese and the European, and when European had horses, they also beat the Native American. While China also had the horses at the moment, the feudal army is always a group of farmers no matter in the East or the West, and they were just not the experts in riding or archery. The Mongolian and the Manchu were not industrial for sure, but that doesn't mean they were the same guys who lived in Beijing.

当汉朝处于农耕社会时，蒙古和满族采取的是游骑形式，这些家伙非常擅长于骑马和射箭。对于工业化前的战争，马匹是非常重要的。不仅仅是因为它们能提供速度，还因为骑兵部队能践踏步兵团。蒙古人打败了汉族和欧洲人，且当欧洲拥有战马时，他们也打败了美国土著。尽管中国那时候也有马，但无论在东方还是西方，封建王朝的军队总是由一群群农夫组成，他们既不擅长骑马也不擅长射箭。蒙古和满族确实没有工业化，但这并不意味着他们就跟住在北京的人是一样儿一样儿的。

JohnRawls
To be honest, China has a bad military record, you must not forget it took 11k british tropps, 6500 french and 1 skilled russian dimplomat to humiliate China.

说真的，中国的军事记录非常糟，你一定不会忘记，1.1万名英国士兵，6500名法国士兵和一名娴熟的俄罗斯外交家就能羞辱中国。

ThirdTerm
US military bases built in Okinawa or the Ryukyus cover over 40 percent of the island's arable soil and China is unlikely to risk waging war against the majority of the US forces stationed in Japan but anything could happen over the disputed Diaoyutai Islands. The Ryukyu Kingdom paid tribute to both China and Japan and China's territorial claims over the region are solely based on the Imperial tributary system exited in the Middle Ages, when Korea, Annam (Vietnam), Siam (Thailand) and Burma were China's tributary states which sent regular tribute missions to Beijing. But Imperial China had no direct control over the tributary states and it's preposterous to claim that those countries historically belonged to China. Moreover, recovering any territories seized by Russia is almost impossible without risking a nuclear war and China's usual bullying tactics against small states in Asia would not work to assert its territorial claims over Outer Mongolia and Manchuria.

美国军队在冲绳和琉球群岛上的军事基地占用了当地超过40%的土地，且中国不会想冒攻击驻扎在日本的大部分美国军队的险来开战，但在有争议的钓鱼岛上，发生一切都有可能。琉球国王向中国和日本都进行纳贡，且中国对该区域的领土主张是基于中世纪时的属国朝贡帝王体系，当时朝鲜、安南（越南）、暹罗（泰国）以及缅甸都是中国的属国，需要定期向北京朝贡。但中华帝国并没有直接控制这些属国，宣称这些国家自古以来就属于中国是荒谬的。此外，想从俄罗斯手里拿回被占的领土，不发动一场核战争是不可能的，且中国在亚洲其他小国家身上惯用的恐吓战术，用在外蒙古和满洲里身上，是起不了啥作用的。

Igor Antunov
90% of that can be achieved without war, and the russia one is completely uneeded.

以上目的90%不用战争就能搞定，俄罗斯就根本无需战争了