伊莉討論區

標題: 馬克·普潤：美國傾覆的海軍政策 [打印本頁]

作者: MightyDragon 時間: 2012-10-30 04:16 PM 標題: 馬克·普潤：美國傾覆的海軍政策

本帖最後由 MightyDragon 於 2012-10-31 07:45 AM 編輯

感想：這個馬克·普潤十足是美國的軍工業、造船業和鋼鐵業的代言人，一心返回冷戰的舊時代

那是軍費可以無限制提高的國防工業黃金時期，只因為世界存在一個「邪惡」的聯盟：蘇聯和華沙條約組織！這類軍政聯合體的代言人的用意是創造新的邪惡核心：伊朗、朝鮮、中國和潛在的俄羅斯，重回高軍費、高稅率的緊日子，只肥了背後操縱美國的西方資本...
[attach]83385421[/attach]
[attach]83385429[/attach]
[attach]83385431[/attach]
[attach]83385434[/attach]
[attach]83385437[/attach]

Source: The Wall Street Journal October 29, 2012
Original Title: Mark Helprin: America's Capsizing Naval Policy
By MARK HELPRIN

During the recent foreign policy debate, the president presumed to instruct his opponent: "Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities."

Yes, the Army's horses have been superseded by tanks and helicopters, and its bayonets rendered mainly ceremonial by armor and long-range, automatic fire, but what, precisely, has superseded ships in the Navy? The commander in chief patronizingly shared his epiphany that the ships of today could beat the hell out of those of 1916. To which one could say, like Neil Kinnock, "I know that, Prime Minister," and go on to add that we must configure the Navy to face not the dreadnoughts of 1916 but "things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them," and "ships that go underwater," and also ballistic missiles, land-based aviation, and electronic warfare.

To hold that numbers and mass in war are unnecessary is as dangerous as believing that they are sufficient. Defense contractor Norman Augustine famously observed that at the rate fighter planes are becoming complex and expensive, soon we will be able to build just one. Neither a plane nor a ship, no matter how capable, can be in more than one place at once. And if one ship that is in some ways equivalent to 100 is damaged or lost, we have lost the equivalent of 100. But, in fact, except for advances in situational awareness, missile defense, and the effect of precision-guided munitions in greatly multiplying the target coverage of carrier-launched aircraft, the Navy is significantly less capable than it was a relatively short time ago in antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, the ability to return ships to battle, and the numbers required to accomplish the tasks of deterrence or war.

For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's diplomacy in the South China Sea is doomed to impotence because it consists entirely of declarations without the backing of sufficient naval potential, even now when China's navy is not half of what it will be in a decade. China's claims, equivalent to American expropriation of Caribbean waters all the way to the coast of Venezuela, are much like Hitler's annexations. But we no longer have bases in the area, our supply lines are attenuated across the vastness of the Pacific, we have much more than decimated our long-range aircraft, and even with a maximum carrier surge we would have to battle at least twice as many Chinese fighters.

Not until recently would China have been so aggressive in the South China Sea, but it has a plan, which is to grow; we have a plan, which is to shrink; and you get what you pay for. To wit, China is purposefully, efficiently, and successfully modernizing its forces and often accepting reductions in favor of quality. And yet, to touch upon just a few examples, whereas 20 years ago it possessed one ballistic-missile submarine and the U.S. 34, now it has three (with two more coming) and the U.S. 14. Over the same span, China has gone from 94 to 71 submarines in total, while the U.S. has gone from 121 to 71. As our numbers decrease at a faster pace, China is also closing the gap in quality.

The effect in principal surface warships is yet more pronounced. While China has risen from 56 to 78, the U.S. has descended from 207 to 114. In addition to parities, China is successfully focusing on exactly what it needs—terminal ballistic missile guidance, superfast torpedoes and wave-skimming missiles, swarms of oceangoing missile craft, battle-picture blinding—to address American vulnerabilities, while our counters are insufficient or nonexistent.

Nor is China our only potential naval adversary, and with aircraft, surface-to-surface missiles and over-the-horizon radars, the littoral countries need not have navies to assert themselves over millions of square miles of sea. Even the Somali pirates, with only outboard motors, skiffs, RPGs, and Kalashnikovs, have taxed the maritime forces of the leading naval states.

What, then, is a relatively safe number of highly capable ships appropriate for the world's richest country and leading naval power? Not the less than 300 at present, or the 200 to which we are headed, and not 330 or 350 either, but 600, as in the 1980s. Then, we were facing the Soviet Union; but now China, better suited as a maritime power, is rising faster than this country at present is willing to face.

The trend lines are obvious and alarming, but in addition we face a potentially explosive accelerant of which the president is probably blissfully unaware, as is perhaps even his secretary of the Navy, who—as he dutifully guts his force—travels with an entourage befitting Kublai Khan, or at least Kublai Khan Jr. That is that whereas the American Shipbuilding Association (now dissolved) counted six major yards, China has more than 100. Whenever China becomes confident of the maturation of its naval weapons systems, it can surge production and leave us as far behind as once we left the Axis and Japan. Its navy will be able to dominate the oceans and cruise in strength off our coasts, reversing roles to its pleasure and our peril—unless we attend to the Navy, in quality, numbers, and without delay.

This will demand a president who, like Reagan, will damn the political torpedoes and back a secretary of the Navy who, like John Lehman, will unashamedly and with every power of rhetoric and persistence rebuild the fleets. The military balance, the poise of the international system, and the peace of the world require no less. Nor does America deserve less.

Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, the novels "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt) and "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt). His most recent novel, "In Sunlight and In Shadow," was published earlier this month by Harcourt.

作者: yastern 時間: 2012-10-30 07:01 PM

高軍費其實對美國也沒什麼好處如果美國都要管那就要到處打仗美國軍廢支出亦會提告這樣便會排擠到其它國內財政所以世界亂對美國經濟並沒好處武器賣再多也補不回

作者: masd57 時間: 2012-10-30 08:50 PM

自稱是世界警察的美國

處處都充滿著陰謀論

在陽光為世界好的表面下

隱藏著龐大利益

作者: mu119 時間: 2012-10-30 10:12 PM

整篇文章雖然是說美國總統的海軍政策問題可其實就是完全針對中國去的裡裡外外說得就是中國是美國的未來敵人而要能抗衡這個敵人美國總統必須對其海軍政策進行改變要回到雷根時代的600艘船計畫才行

作者: eded4141 時間: 2012-10-30 10:14 PM

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: AW050263AW 時間: 2012-10-30 11:26 PM

整篇文章是在講中國威脅論~
其中還提到日本~
如無駐日本中國已進入太平洋........

作者: CH01314 時間: 2012-10-31 01:02 AM

老實講兩國一直維持最大假想敵狀態
只是表面上要保持友好
呵兩國還是邦交國耶
真是可笑的狀態

作者: MAXpayne1 時間: 2012-10-31 04:43 AM

沒所謂，盡管造，看誰先破產吧。。中國還巴不得你大造，猛造。

作者: len1911 時間: 2012-10-31 09:37 AM

銀河英雄傳另一篇樂章，看哪個陣營先被軍費拖垮。

作者: 白蓮梵天 時間: 2012-10-31 04:20 PM

yastern 發表於 2012-10-30 07:01 PM
高軍費其實對美國也沒什麼好處如果美國都要管那就要到處打仗美國軍廢支出亦會提告這樣便會排擠到其它國 ...

美國人要的是全世界都來分擔美元負債
怎麼甩都甩不掉的計畫
這些高科技軍事武器都是印美鈔來的

作者: ROME502 時間: 2012-10-31 07:16 PM

美國這麼作全世界老早就有前車之鑑現在對中國周邊國家挑撥在從中牟利以是老技倆了

作者: wasimaxchao 時間: 2012-11-4 06:26 PM

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: 爆頭小黑X 時間: 2012-11-5 11:47 AM

wasimaxchao 發表於 2012-11-4 06:26 PM
我以為美國已經決定要用電磁炮系列的戰艦取代航空母艦了

電磁軌道砲那應該要等到2020年以後
才會出來巴甚至更久

作者: funing777 時間: 2012-11-5 08:45 PM

戰爭的目的還不是也是為了利益
如果沒有好處
或是好處不值得發動戰爭
誰要去打仗阿

作者: MK17M249 時間: 2012-11-21 03:27 PM

看到"組織"一詞就讓人想到美國目前在亞洲的同盟國，以及中國上海合作組織
美國之前在歐洲地區成立了"北大西洋公約組織"，前蘇聯之後也成立了"華沙公約組織"
這兩個組織就是冷戰的主角

而現在整個世界的重點轉到了遠東地區；類似的威脅、類似的背景
未來美中兩國很可能會在遠東地區，各自成立類似北大西洋和華沙公約的組織
目前上海合作組織就蠻有潛力轉為軍事組織
而美國在遠東地區本就有日、韓、中華民國、菲律賓、新加坡這幾個比較有實力的盟友
未來成立也成立類似北大西洋公約組織的組織是很有機會的

作者: janex 時間: 2012-11-21 06:07 PM

帝國主義

一切的目的都是掠奪資源

無論何種型式的資源

美國現在也的確還維持得很不錯

作者: 3542 時間: 2012-11-21 07:44 PM

janex 發表於 2012-11-21 06:07 PM
帝國主義

一切的目的都是掠奪資源

你要看是哪種
大航海時代純屬資源和勞力
工業革命後為新帝國主義
除了經濟利益
擴及文化控制、意識形態、種族主義、民粹等

現在的美國
沒有刻意去做文化控制，它是建立在經濟利益之上
種族主義還好
但有自視世界警察

應該偏後者

簡言之
弱肉強食

歡迎光臨伊莉討論區 (http://a401.file-static.com/)