美国网友问：为什么美国不像轰炸叙利亚和阿富汗那样轰炸中国？

美国建国至今的246年间只有19年是没打仗的。纵观美国的历史在某种意义上可以总结为：要么就是在干仗，要么在干仗的路上。美国发动的对外战争基本上以二战为界呈现出不同的特点：在二战前美国和英国打过、和德国打过、和日本打过，可二战后美国实际上就没再真正和强国打过仗，总是欺负越南、格林纳达、伊拉克等小国。在海外问答论坛，美国网友问：既然美国认为中国是最大的对手，为什么美国没有像叙利亚、利比亚和阿富汗那样轰炸中国？我们看看各国网友的回答。

问题：为什么美国不像轰炸叙利亚、利比亚｀阿富汗那样轰炸中国？

海外网友皮特•坎耶的回答

Doesn't the United States want to do this? The United States wants to, but dare not! The United States is accustomed to dealing with relatively weaker opponents, and is accustomed to being the big brother and dominant figure, telling others what to do. But facing China, the United States clearly cannot act like it did in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.

难道美国不想这样做吗？美国想，但不敢！美国习惯于与相对较弱的对手打交道，习惯于做老大哥、霸主，告诉别人该怎么做。但面对中国，美国显然不能像过去在伊拉克、阿富汗等国那样行事。

Everyone should know that the United States, under the banner of counter-terrorism, has committed evil in various parts of the world, causing Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries to fall into the battlefield one after another, and many regions are still in chaos and turmoil. The United States launched a large-scale air strike on Libya, sending US troops to ravage Afghanistan for 20 years, and recently suddenly launched an air strike on Syria. We have seen the true nature of the United States bullying the weak, using its hegemonic advantage to do whatever it wants and oppressing small and weak countries.

大家应该知道，美国打着反恐的旗号，在世界各地作恶，导致阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亚、叙利亚等国相继陷入战场，许多地区仍处于混乱和动荡之中。美国对利比亚发动了大规模空袭，派遣美军在阿富汗肆虐了20年，不久前还突然空袭了叙利亚。我们看到了美国恃强凌弱，利用自己的霸权优势为所欲为，压迫弱小国家的真实本性。

The United States dare not engage in direct war with China in practical actions or military matters. Due to China being a major country far away from the United States, the investment in launching a war will be enormous. Regardless of the outcome of the war, the United States cannot bear the cost of the war, let alone benefit from it.

美国不敢在实际行动或军事上与中国进行直接战争。由于中国是一个远离美国的大国，发动战争的投入将是巨大的。无论战争结果如何，美国都无法承担战争的代价，更不用说从中受益了。

Going to war with the world's most populous and economically prosperous country will only be detrimental to oneself, and even harm both sides. Therefore, the United States has taken on a new approach, constantly hyping up the "China threat", constantly smearing, provoking, and suppressing China. These are just to maintain its hegemony. With China's "threat", there is an excuse to increase military spending and engage allies in military exercises. These actions will cause a sensation in many parts of the world.

与世界上人口和经济最多的国家开战，只会对自己不利，甚至是两败俱伤。因此，美国又出了新花样，不断炒作“中国威胁”，不断抹黑、挑衅、打压中国。这些只是为了维护其霸权。有了中国这样的“威胁”，就有借口增加军费，拉盟友进行军事演习。这些行动将在世界许多地方引起轰动。

Let me be clear, I don't think the United States has not launched a "war" against China. A zero sum game is a war without gunpowder! The United States is attempting to contain China by restricting its trade, exchanges, cooperation, and personnel contact. In a speech at the US Naval Academy, Navy Secretary Del Toro declared, "Frankly speaking, the ideal goal is not to go to war with China. No one wants to get involved in conflict. But our ultimate responsibility is to prevent them from achieving the goals they are trying to achieve

让我明确一点，我不认为美国没有对中国发动“战争”。零和游戏就是一场没有硝烟的战争！美国试图通过限制中国的贸易、交流与合作以及人员接触来遏制中国。在美国海军学院的一次演讲中，海军部长德尔·托罗宣称：“坦率地说，理想的目标不是与中国开战。没有人想卷入冲突。但我们的最终责任是阻止他们实现他们试图实现的目标。”

The United States sees China as an urgent challenge and threat, using various means to limit and suppress its development. Under Trump's leadership, the United States has imposed sanctions on China, leading to escalating trade frictions. Its perception and positioning of China are seriously off track. Treating China as its main competitor and the biggest geopolitical challenge is not beneficial for the United States. Admitting this, American style 'competition' is to contain and suppress on various fronts, and engage in a fierce competition with opponents.

美国将中国视为一个紧迫的挑战和威胁，使用各种手段限制和压制其发展。在特朗普的领导下，美国对中国实施了制裁，贸易摩擦不断升级。 它对中国的认知和定位严重偏离轨道。将中国视为其主要竞争对手和最大的地缘政治挑战对美国来说是没有好处的。承认这一点，美国式的“竞争”就是在各条战线上进行遏制和压制，并与对手进行你死我活的竞争。

As two major countries in the world, the United States and China need to find a mutually beneficial and win-win development path through cooperation. China has always been a country that promotes peace, but it is clear that the United States is not aware of this or unwilling to ignore it. I really hope that one day the United States can understand that hegemony and zero sum games will not bring it back to glory, but will only make it go further and further on the wrong path.

美中作为世界上的两个大国，需要通过合作找到一条互利共赢的发展道路。中国一直是一个宣扬和平的国家，但显然美国没有意识到这一点，或者说不愿意对此置若罔闻。我真的希望美国有一天能明白，霸权和零和游戏不会让它重回辉煌，只会让它在错误的道路上越走越远。

美国网友克里斯•弗雷克的回答

I think there are at least two reasons.

我认为至少有两个原因。

Firstly, the possibility of retaliation. Compared to China's retaliation against the United States, the combined impact of Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan on the United States is negligible. The reason why the United States did not send ground troops to Ukraine is very illustrative. China, like the United States, possesses nuclear weapons.

首先，报复的可能性。与中国对美国的报复相比，叙利亚、利比亚和阿富汗加起来对美国的影响微不足道。美国没有在乌克兰派遣地面部队的原因很能说明问题。中国和美国一样拥有核武器。

Secondly, repeat the Cold War strategy against the former Soviet Union. The United States won the Cold War with the former Soviet Union without firing a single shot. Now they are using the so-called containment strategy of allowing US allies or pro US governments to surround China.

第二，重复针对前苏联的冷战战略。美国在与前苏联的冷战中一枪未发就取得了胜利。现在他们正在使用让美国盟友或亲美政府包围中国的所谓遏制战略。

South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines are allies of the United States in the East and South China Seas. Australia forms the AUKUS alliance with the UK in the South Indian Ocean. If there are issues with China's relations, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore are more likely to lean towards the United States. On the western border of China, there may be Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as some Central Asian countries that may become pro American due to the color revolution.

韩国、日本和菲律宾在东中国海和南中国海都是美国的盟友。澳大利亚在南印度洋与英国组成AUKUS联盟。如果与中国的关系出现问题，泰国、马来西亚、越南和新加坡更有可能倾向于美国。在中国西部边境，有阿富汗和巴基斯坦，可能还有一些中亚国家可能会因颜色革命而变得亲美。

Triggering border conflicts between India and China will distract China's attention. We have witnessed the coup in Myanmar and the riots in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, all of which are bordering or within the Chinese Mainland. If the United States can influence or even coerce OPEC countries not to sell energy to China through sanctions or any necessary means, or as they have done with Russian natural gas, this will reduce China's industrial capacity.

引发印度和中国之间的边界冲突会分散中国的注意力。我们目睹了缅甸的政变、香港特区的骚乱，所有这些都与中国大陆接壤或在中国大陆内。如果美国能够通过实施制裁或任何必要手段影响乃至胁迫欧佩克国家不向中国出售能源，或像他们对俄罗斯天然气所做的那样，这将降低中国的工业能力。

The United States is doing its best to surround China with a pro American government, American allies, and possible pro American anti government forces, in an attempt to make China surrender without a war like the Soviet Union. But this strategy requires time, careful planning, and execution. In 2024, the United States will hold a presidential election. However, who will be the next US President will not have much influence on this foreign policy strategy.

美国正在尽力让中国被亲美政府、美国盟友以及可能的亲美反政府武装包围，美国企图这样就能让中国像苏联那样不战而降。但这一战略需要时间、周密的计划和执行。2024年，美国将举行总统大选。不过，谁是下一任美国总统对这一外交政策战略不会有太大影响。

Most importantly, this strategy has already been done before and extensive analysis has been conducted. We see that the sanctions imposed on Russia are not as effective. It did indeed reduce Russia's oil and gas revenues, but not as much as expected. It may have achieved some goals, but over time, it can be counterattacked. Some even have the opposite effect.

最重要的是，这种策略以前已经做过了，并且进行了大量的分析。我们看到，对俄罗斯实施的制裁并没有那么有效。它确实减少了俄罗斯的石油和天然气收入，但没有预期的那么多。它可能实现了一些目标，但随着时间的推移，它可以被反击。有些甚至适得其反。

China is developing its own domestic semiconductor manufacturing technology. They are also preparing to trade outside of the US dollar and Swift systems. They have also anticipated the provocation from the United States. They reduced their holdings of US debt and financial assets. Their recent silent diplomacy to ease the tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a remarkable achievement.

中国正在开发自己的本土半导体制造技术。他们还准备在美元和Swift系统之外进行交易。他们也已经预料到美国的挑衅。他们减少了对美国债务和金融资产的持有。他们最近为缓解伊朗和沙特之间的紧张局势而进行的无声外交是了不起的成就。

But the outcome remains to be seen.

但结果如何，我们拭目以待。

海外网友亚当•菲亚德的回答

Simple answer: Simple mathematics. There are about 1.4 billion people in China. Considering the age distribution/sex ratio and average health status of Chinese people, they may be able to develop 100 million to 120 million reserves - including only men. If they introduce women of the same age group, the number can increase by at least 80%. This means that China has a potential military force of 100 to 200 million, almost two-thirds of the population of the United States.

简单的回答：简单的数学。中国约有14亿人口，考虑到中国人的年龄分布/性别比例和平均健康状况，他们可能会可以开发1亿至1.2亿预备役——这仅包括男性。如果他们引入相同年龄段的女性，人数至少可以增加80%。这意味着中国拥有1亿至2亿的潜在兵力，几乎是美国人口的三分之二。

Stalin said during World War II that numbers are important, which is true, as China has proven during the Korean War and elsewhere. Now, they have reached the global average in training and possess strong manufacturing capabilities to produce the necessary war materials (small arms, ammunition, etc.). When defending their homeland, they will have a morale advantage - never underestimate this.

斯大林在二战期间说过，人数很重要，这是真的，中国在朝鲜战争期间和其他地方已经证明了这一点。现在，他们在训练方面达到了全球平均水平，拥有生产所需战争物资（小武器、弹药等）的强大制造能力，在保卫家园时，他们将拥有士气优势——永远不要低估这一点。

In addition, China is one of the largest countries on Earth, with the majority of its population heavily concentrated in coastal areas. Therefore, any land invasion from the West will lead to a rainstorm like counterattack. Invasions from the north or south are impossible because the countries located in these regions, such as Russia, India, and others, do not want to be involved in this issue and may have opposed the invasion from the beginning.

除此之外，中国是地球上最大的国家之一，其大部分人口严重集中在沿海地区。因此，来自西方的任何陆地入侵都会导致暴雨般的反击。来自北方或南方的入侵是不可能的，因为位于这些地区的国家：俄罗斯、印度和其他国家不想卷入这个问题，可能一开始就反对入侵。

Therefore, the only feasible option is to launch an attack from the coast, and China has been preparing for this for decades. Until 15 years ago, China's defense strategy was focused on coastal defense - small and medium-sized vessels, coastal defense, medium and short range anti-ship/tactical cruise missiles, and so on. Similar to Iran's strategy. The defense is so crowded and numerous that the invading power will be weakened by the swarm.

因此，唯一可行的选择是从海岸发动进攻，而中国几十年来一直在为此做准备。直到15年前，中国的防御战略都是面向沿海防御的——中小型舰艇、海岸防御、中短程反舰/战术巡航导弹等等。与伊朗的战略相同。防御是如此拥挤和众多，入侵的力量将被蜂群削弱。

In addition, in the past 15 years, China has been catching up through various means. Now they have a decent surface navy and a powerful submarine force. Not to mention, they have already started creating their own overseas logistics bases and opening other war zones.

除此之外，在过去的15年里，中国一直在通过各种手段进行追赶。现在他们有一支像样的水面海军和一支强大的潜艇部队。更不用说，他们已经开始创建自己的海外后勤基地，并开设其他战区。

The US military cannot fight against such enemies - they cannot even defeat much smaller and less populous countries such as Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan. They initially achieved success, but the mid to late stage matches were very bad for them. In all these cases, they were forcibly drained and had to withdraw.

美国军队无法与这样的敌人作战-他们甚至都无法击败越南、伊朗、阿富汗等规模小得多、人口少得多的国家。他们最初取得了成功，但中后期的比赛对他们来说非常糟糕。在所有这些情况下，他们都被强行抽干了，不得不撤军。

The combined population and surface area of these three countries I mentioned are less than one tenth of that of the People's Republic of China. So do you think the US military can succeed? This is not a colonial period. At that time, there were obvious differences in military technology and political ideology, and the local people were naive/stupid. You are facing an equally organized, determined, and ruthless modern military force.

我提到的这三个国家的人口和表面积加起来不到中华人民共和国的十分之一。所以你认为美国军队能成功吗？这不是殖民主义时期，当时军事技术、政治意识形态存在明显差异，当地人天真/愚蠢。你面对的是一个同样有组织、有决心、冷酷无情的现代军事力量。

That is why the United States or any other major country cannot achieve decisive victory in confronting major powers such as China and India, despite their widely touted advantages.

这就是为什么美国或任何其他大国都无法在对抗中国和印度等大国时取得决定性胜利，尽管它们拥有广泛吹捧的优势。

新加坡网友KokHin Lim的回答

The purpose of military power is to achieve specific political goals. No one participates in war solely for the sake of war, "victory" is not a military concept, but a political concept. So, yes, war is the continuation of politics through other means.

•军事力量的目的是实现特定的政治目标。没有人仅仅为了战争而参战，“胜利”不是一种军事概念，而是一种政治概念。所以，是的，战争是政治通过其他方式的延续。

Therefore, only by achieving political goals can military power be successfully utilized. Bombing a country itself cannot achieve political results. The uninformed public may view it as a victory (such as entertainment), but as a goal of the military, it has achieved nothing.

•因此，只有达到政治目标，才能成功使用军事力量。轰炸一个国家本身并不能取得政治结果。不知情的公众可能会将其视为一场胜利（如娱乐），但作为军队的一个目标，它一无所获。

In fact, this may lead to negative political outcomes, which is usually Bush's approach in the Middle East, and therefore the public is dissatisfied with the results of these wars.

•事实上，这可能导致负面的政治结果，这通常是布什在中东的做法，因此大众对这些战争的结果感到不满。

If possible, the United States will avoid direct conflicts with Russia and China.

如果可能的话，美国将避免与俄罗斯和中国发生直接冲突。

Russia is a well-known military power, but its economic strength is not strong. However, with very few exceptions, their army has rarely failed.

•俄罗斯是一个众所周知的军事大国，但经济实力并不强。然而，除了极少数例外，他们的军队少有败绩。

The United States is a well-known military and economic power. Their army is much larger than Russia's. It is the most expensive military, has fought the most wars since World War II, and possesses the most advanced weapons. Despite these facts, its military has not been very successful in achieving its goals in the past few decades.

•美国是一个众所周知的军事大国和经济大国。他们的军队规模比俄罗斯大得多。它是最昂贵的军队，自二战以来打过最多的战争，拥有最先进的武器。尽管存在这些事实，但在过去几十年中，其军队在实现其目标方面并不是很成功。

China is an economic and modern military power with the largest active military. The war between China and the United States may cause considerable damage to both countries. Since China has no political interest in attacking the United States, it can concentrate its efforts to defend China. Therefore, in a war, the United States must launch an attack.

•中国是一个经济大国和现代化军事大国，拥有最大的现役军队。中美之间的战争可能会对两国造成相当大的损害。既然中国攻击美国没有政治利益，它可以集中力量保卫中国。因此，在一场战争中，美国必须发动进攻。

Due to China's primary focus on national defense, in addition to conventional forces, China has also developed asymmetric weapon systems, making it difficult to predict the outcome of participating in such wars... Failure would be a catastrophic geopolitical outcome of US hegemony. However, no one knows whether the United States or China will win, or whether a ceasefire will be the ultimate outcome.

•由于中国主要关注国防，除了常规部队外，中国还发展了不对称武器系统，参与这样的战争结果难以预料………而失败将是美国霸权的灾难性地缘政治结果。然而，没有人知道美国或中国是否会获胜，或者停战是否会是最终结果。

华裔网友Jack Gao的回答

Of course the United States can, it is the world's number one! In the past forty years, China has been trying to catch up with the United States in terms of economic growth, and may even lower the United States to second place in the near future. However, China lags far behind the United States in terms of defense capabilities.

美国当然可以，它可是世界第一！在过去的四十年里，中国一直试图在经济增长方面赶上美国，甚至可能在不久的将来将美国降到第二位。但是，中国在防御能力上远远落后于美国。

Let's take a look at the military capabilities of both countries:

让我们看看两国的军事能力：

The United States' defense spending is $610 billion, almost three times that of China's $228 billion in defense spending.

1.美国的国防开支为7000亿美元，几乎是中国2280亿美元国防开支的三倍多。

2. The United States has a strong navy with a global network of naval bases, while China only has one overseas naval base.

2.美国拥有一支强大的海军，拥有全球海军基地网络，而中国只有一个海外海军基地。

3. The number of US defense forces may be relatively small, but the US also has more advanced weapon systems, fighter jets, and missiles.

3.美国的国防军数量可能较少，但美国也拥有技术更先进的武器系统、战斗机和导弹等。

The United States has a huge nuclear capability of 6500 nuclear warheads, while China only has 300 nuclear warheads.

4.美国拥有6500枚核弹头的巨大核能力，而中国只有300枚核弹头。

5. The US military has long held multiple positions in foreign operations, while China does not have such experience.

5.美国军队长期身兼数职在外国作战，而中国没有这种经验。

There are many other facts that prove that the United States has the ability to win any military confrontation anywhere.

还有许多其他事实证明，美国有能力在任何地方的任何军事对抗中获胜。

But since the United States can easily win, why hasn't the Pentagon bombed China like Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan? What are they waiting for?

可既然美国可以这么容易就能获胜，那为什么五角大楼没有像叙利亚、利比亚和阿富汗那样轰炸中国？他们在等什么呢？