如果中国没有核武器，美国可以轻易地打败中国，那么为什么美国没有像阻止伊朗或朝鲜那样阻止中国拥有核武器呢？
您的位置：首页 > 军事军事
QA问答：为什么美国没有像阻止伊朗或朝鲜那样阻止中国拥有核武器呢？
The US can easily beat China if China didn''t have nuclear weapons, so why didn''t the US prevent China from having it like how we did to prevent Iran or North Korea?
2022-05-07
互联网
762
收藏
举报
译文简介
网友：美国无法在常规战争中打败中国.中国有超过10亿的人口，这意味着他们可以很容易地部署一支1亿人的军队，而美国则很难部署3200万人。中国正在工业化，可以用坦克和飞机等现代武器装备军队，中国海军是世界第二大海军，其舰艇数量略少于400艘。
正文翻译
如果中国没有核武器，美国可以轻易地打败中国，那么为什么美国没有像阻止伊朗或朝鲜那样阻止中国拥有核武器呢？
评论翻译
Dan Gall, worked at Canadian Armed Forces (1972-1997)，Lives in Fergus, Ontario, Canada2008–present
The US could not defeat China in a conventional war.
China has over a billion in their population meaning they could easily field an army of 100 million troops, the US would be hard pressed to field 32 million. China is industrialize and can equip their army with modern weapons like tanks and aircraft, the Chinese Navy is the second largest in the world at just under 400 ships, the US has just over 400 ships.
美国无法在常规战争中打败中国。
中国有超过10亿的人口，这意味着他们可以很容易地部署一支1亿人的军队，而美国则很难部署3200万人。中国正在工业化，可以用坦克和飞机等现代武器装备军队，中国海军是世界第二大海军，其舰艇数量略少于400艘。
In Korea, Even with superior firepower, the US and UN allies could not defeat the Chinese troops and there were only 500,000 of them. Your perception that the US could beat China items from Korea., showing you don’t know the history of that conflict either.
The US could not defeat China in a conventional war
在朝鲜半岛，即使拥有强大的火力，美国与其联合国盟国也无法打败中国军队，当时中国军队在朝鲜半岛只部署了50万人。你认为美国可以打败中国，这说明你不知道那场冲突的历史。
美国无法在常规战争中打败中国。
Benjamin Cornia
A war with China would not be easy for the US. Having Nuclear weapons doesn’t make war easy. There are nine countries with nuclear weapons: US, China, UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. I’m pretty sure the Chinese would be able to steal the technology or get it from the Russians, or create it themselves, they have impressive nuclear technologies. China has veto power in the UN (along with Russia, UK, US, and France), so sanctions wouldn’t work. China has an enormous economy, so if the US tried to force China to not have nuclear weapons, China’s economic retaliation could create a global recession.
对美国来说，与中国开战并非易事，拥有核武器并不能使战争变得容易。有九个国家拥有核武器：美国、中国、英国、法国、俄罗斯、印度、巴基斯坦、朝鲜和以色列。我很肯定中国人能够从俄国人那里窃取或得到核技术，或者自己研发。中国（还有俄罗斯、英国、美国和法国）在联合国安理会拥有否决权，所以制裁不会奏效。中国拥有庞大的经济实力，因此如果美国试图迫使中国放弃拥有核武器，中国的经济报复可能造成全球经济衰退。
The United States tried to prevent North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, because the people of North Korea have routinely threatened to attack the United States. North Korea, is (respectfully) an extremely hostile nation.
Iran is not nearly as hostile as North Korea. There’s a reasonable argument to make that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, seeing how aggressive Israel has been to Iran and how Israel already has nuclear weapons. At least in the United States, there is this strange belief that the nation of Israel represents all Judeo-Christian beliefs, so when an American politician criticizes the actions of Israel or suggests reducing military aid to Israel, there is backlash of people calling that politician anti-Semitic and Unchristian.
美国试图阻止朝鲜获得核武器是因为朝鲜人经常威胁要攻击美国，朝鲜对美国来说是一个极端敌对的国家。
伊朗并不像朝鲜那样充满敌意。有一个合理的理由认为伊朗应该被允许拥有核武器，因为以色列已经拥有了核武器，而且以色列对伊朗一直咄咄相逼。不过至少在美国，人们有一种奇怪的信念，认为以色列民族代表了所有的犹太教和基督教的信仰，因此当一位美国政治家批评以色列的行为或建议减少对以色列的军事援助时，人们会强烈反对并称这位政治家是反犹太主义和反非基督教的。
Thomas Dollar, R&D, Production, Safety & Regulatory Affairs
Several key flaws in you question. One is the US could not easily beat China in a nuclear or non nuclear war. Remember that the two countries fought to a standstill in Korea - and China’s military is much stronger today than then. China also has a huge advantage in the numbers of troops and equipment.
你的问题存在几个关键缺陷。一是美国在核战争或非核战争中无法轻易击败中国。记住，这两个国家曾在朝鲜战争中打成平手，而今天的中国的军队比那时要强大得多，中国现在在兵力和装备方面也享有巨大的优势。
Next there’s no preventing a country with enough money and determination from developing a nuclear weapon. China had/has tremendous willpower, dedication, technology and money to develop their own weapons. North Korea has far less of all these resources yet they managed to build their own nuke. It’s only a matter of time before Iran achieve the same goal.
The best one country can do to prevent another country from building a nuke if they’re serious about it is delay their progress.
其次，美国无法阻止一个拥有足够资金和决心的国家发展核武器。中国有巨大的意志力、献身精神、技术和资金来发展自己的武器。朝鲜拥有的资源少得多，但他们也成功地制造了自己的核武器。伊朗实现同样的目标只是时间问题。
如果一个国家真的想阻止另一个国家制造核武器，那么最好的办法就是拖延他们的进度。
Duncan Cairncross, Retired Engineer，Lives in Gore, Southland, New Zealand2006–present
The US can easily beat China if China didn't have nuclear weapons, so why didn't the US prevent China from having it like how we did to prevent Iran or North Korea?
The USA cannot “Defeat China” in a conventional war
Just as China could not invade and defeat the USA in a conventional war
In both instances the defender has so much of an advantage and the logistics of invasion are immense
With Nuclear weapons the USA could destroy China - and China could destroy the USA
美国无法在常规战争中“打败中国”。
就像中国无法在常规战争中侵略和打败美国一样。
在这两种情况下，防御者都有很大的优势，而且入侵对后勤保障需求是巨大的。
有了核武器，美国可以摧毁中国，中国也可以摧毁美国。
Why didn't the US prevent China from having nukes?
Because science and engineering are universal and as soon as the very first nuke was detonated everybody knew they were possible which is 90% of the battle
Once the cat was out of the bag any mid sized or larger country had the ability to make Nukes if it was willing to invest the resources
为什么美国不阻止中国拥有核武器？
因为科学和工程学是普遍存在的，一旦第一枚核武器被引爆，那么每个人都会知道核武器是可以被制造出来的，这就解决了90%的难题。
一旦这个秘密被泄露，任何一个中等或稍大的国家只要愿意投入资源，他们都有能力制造核武器。
Kanthaswamy Balasubramaniam, Lawyer，Lives in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Initially USSR helped a lot. China sent 430 Engineers to Russia to learn everything to learn.
By the time the Sino - Soviet split took place, China had everything required with 430 trained experts now ready to train 7600 more.
Kennedy and Khrushchev and later Johnson and Brezhnev never thought for a second that China would evolve to become so big and so important. In 1967, China was like say Burma or say Syria is today
So they just shrugged when China did its tests in 63 and 67.
Worst part is their technology came from the US house of archives where books of 1945 declassified old and redundant technology was stored
They built a Premier Padmini while US and USSR were exploring Audis or Daimlers at that time.
As the Chinese say JOSS - meaning FATE.
最初苏联给了中国很多帮助，中国派出了430名工程师到苏联学习了一切需要学习的东西。
到中苏分裂发生时，中国已经具备了所需的一切，430名训练有素的专家已经准备好再培训7600人。
肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫以及后来的约翰逊和勃列日涅夫从来没有想过中国会发展成为如此庞大和重要的国家。因为在1967年，中国就像今天我们所说的缅甸或叙利亚。
所以当中国在1963和1967年进行核试验时，他们只是耸了耸肩。
Jeff Hall, Cold Warrior and technically savvy
A nation of a billion will never be an easy beat. Get over your hubris.
Next, China exploded their first Nuke in the 1960s. At that time, proliferation was not as big a deal as it became later: folks were still thinking that nukes had to be delivered by bomber. Missiles were still coming into their own.
Also, when China exploded their first nuke, there was no anti-proliferation treaty in place. That changed rapidly with the treaty being opened for signatures in 1968, the year after China’s first nuke, and went into effect in 1970. part of getting and making the anti-proliferation treaty stick was saying: if you’ve got’em now, we won’t fight it.
一个拥有十亿人口的国家永远不会是一个容易被打败的国家，请克服你的傲慢。
中国在20世纪60年代引爆了第一枚核武器。在那个时候，核扩散并不像后来那样被认为是件大事：当时人们仍然认为核武器必须由轰炸机运送，而现在核武器则由导弹自行发射。
而且，当中国进行第一次核试验时，还没有《防核扩散条约》。1968年，即中国第一次核试验的第二年，该条约开放供签署并于1970年生效，这种情况迅速改变。让《防核扩散条约》生效的一部分原因就是：如果你已经有了核武器，我们就不会反对你。
Doug Freyburger, lived in Austin, TX
“The US can easily beat China if China didn't have nuclear weapons, so why didn't the US prevent China from having it like how we did to prevent Iran or North Korea?”
Members of the nuclear club generally don’t want new members in the club. To join the nuclear club you have to earn it the hard way by science and industry. Evrey county that is a member of the nuclear club got there the hard way by developing their own. The US cooperated or opposed to various degrees.
The US cooperated with the UK to make nukes in the first place. Then the material was classified. The UK had to demand the materia
核俱乐部的成员一般不希望俱乐部有新成员加入。要加入核俱乐部，你必须通过在科学和工业上的艰苦努力来赢得它。核俱乐部的每一个成员都是在美国不同程度的合作和反对下，通过艰难的发展才拿到这一地位的。
美国首先与英国合作制造核武器，但他们对材料进行了保密，英国不得不要求美国提供这些材料。
Did the US cooperate with France or Israel when they made nukes? Mostly the US didn’t interfere. Maybe the US didn’t interfere, much, when India developed its own nukes.
The Soviet unx developed nukes on their own. How much did they help China? Less than the Soviets claimed. More than the Chinese admit. Their relationship was closer to US-France than to US-UK. China was not on the Soviet team that developed the first Soviet nukes. They earned their nukes the hard way.
法国研发核武器时美国是否提供了合作？大体上美国没有干预它们。也许美国在印度发展自己的核武器时也没有进行太多干涉。
苏联自行研制了核武器，他们对中国提供了多少帮助？比苏联宣称的要少，比中国人承认的要多。他们的关系更接近美法，而不是美英。中国不在苏联研制第一批核武器的研发队伍中，他们靠艰苦的努力研制了自己的核武器。
The US must have tried to interfere in China but our capability their after their Communist revolution was very low. We can’t just say “stop” and have other countries obey.
Pakistan and North Korea earned their nukes the hard way by their own effort, science and industry. No one much helped either, The Soviets may have leaked some math and data but less than the Soviets claimed.
美国肯定是想干涉中国的核武器研制，但我们无能为力，我们不能只说“停止”就让其他国家服从。
巴基斯坦和朝鲜依靠自己的努力、科学家和工业界艰难地获得了核武器，没人帮什么忙，苏联可能泄露了一些数据，但比俄罗斯声称的要少。
James Houk
The Taliban is far smaller and poorer equiped than US forces yet it as effectively driven the US forcess outof Afganistan. If the US is unable to easily beat small backward countries like Vietnam and Afganistan why do you believe the US could “easily beat” a high tech country like China when China has roughly twice as many active duty troops as the US does.
Truth is we stand far less of a chance of defeating China on the ground than Japan did in 1939. Americans have little taste for large numbers of body bags being flown home. Even if we turn the Chinese cities into radioactive dust I would not want to be one of the ground troops sent to fight in that dust as I expect the fight would make Afgahnistan look like a benign training exercise.
I also do not see the American public being willing to accept large numbers of radioactive body bags. On the other hand, what do I know? The US just lost more people than in WWII to COVID and some people are still entering the hospital claiming that Covid is a hoax with their dying breaths. with this level of wilful denial maybe we would simply classify the body bags as radioactive waste and go on with our lives.
塔利班比美军小得多，装备也差得多，但它却有效地将美军赶出了阿富汗。如果美国无法轻易打败越南和阿富汗这样的落后小国，为什么你认为美国可以“轻易打败”中国这样的高科技国家呢？要知道中国的现役部队数量大约是美国的两倍。
事实是，我们在地面上打败中国的概率远不如1939年的日本。美国人对大量的尸袋被空运回家没有什么兴趣，即使我们把中国的城市变成放射性尘埃，我也不想成为被派往在放射性尘埃中作战的地面部队之一，因为我预计这场战斗会让阿富汗战争看起来像一场良性的训练演习。
我也不认为美国公众愿意接受大量的放射性尸体袋。另一方面，美国刚刚在大流行中失去了比二战时更多的人，但一些人仍然在进入医院已经呼吸衰竭的情况下声称，新冠病毒是一场骗局。在这种故意否认的情况下，也许我们可以轻松地将尸体袋归类为放射性废物并继续我们的生活。
Doug Freyburger
You and the asker have conflated conquest with occupation. People who don’t study history do that all of the time, most especially conquerors.
Importantly the asker conflated conquest with occupation. Why fight China is the result would be an impossible occupation? History does give an answer that clearly did not occur to the asker - For your grand children to become Chinese. Across the millennia numerous conquerors swept across China. Some were ejected in the style of the Soviets being ejected from Afghanistan. More were assimilated into Chinese society while they expected Chinese society to be assimilated by them.
你和提问者把征服和占领混为一谈了，不研究历史的人总是这样。
为什么美国不可能占领中国？历史确实给出了一个提问者显然没有想到的答案——你的孙子孙女会成为中国人。几千年来，无数征服者横扫中国，其中一些人被驱逐出境，就像苏联人被驱逐出阿富汗一样，但更多的人在期待中国社会被他们同化的同时被中国社会同化了。
James Houk
My point is that the US would never get to the point of occupation.
I agree that occupation does not equal conquest. Conquest involves an intent to keep the territory involved. This does not work well without an absolute and brutal oppression. Killing all the men and breeding the women is a bit outdated but it tends to ensure that the former culture is destroyed and unable to rise again. An attempt to revive this procedure was recently seen under the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Historically, China also made use of this procedure and claims are being made of similar attrocities in Mongolia.
The US has a bad habit of wanting to blow things up, declare victory and go home. This will not work with China.
我的观点是，美国对中国的攻击永远不会达到占领的地步。
我同意占领并不等于征服。征服包括占领全部领土，如果没有绝对和残酷的压迫，这是行不通的。杀光所有的男人和女人有点过时了，但它往往会确保以前的文化被摧毁并无法重新崛起。
美国有一个坏习惯，就是想把事情搞砸，然后宣布胜利并回家，但这对中国不起作用。
Doug Freyburger
We are now well beyond the topic of the question. The question asked why the US didn’t prevent China from getting nukes. The answer was we couldn’t.
我们现在已经远远超出了这个问题的主题，问题是为什么美国不阻止中国获得核武器，答案是我们不能。
James Houk
Best we could do was fly a SR-71 through the cloud to take samples.
我们所能做的就是驾驶SR-71穿过云层采集中国核爆后的样本。
原文地址：https://www.quora.com/The-US-can-easily-beat-China-if-China-didnt-have-nuclear-weapons-so-why-didnt-the-US-prevent-China-from-having-it-like-how-we-did-to-prevent-Iran-or-North-Korea
The US could not defeat China in a conventional war.
China has over a billion in their population meaning they could easily field an army of 100 million troops, the US would be hard pressed to field 32 million. China is industrialize and can equip their army with modern weapons like tanks and aircraft, the Chinese Navy is the second largest in the world at just under 400 ships, the US has just over 400 ships.
美国无法在常规战争中打败中国。
中国有超过10亿的人口，这意味着他们可以很容易地部署一支1亿人的军队，而美国则很难部署3200万人。中国正在工业化，可以用坦克和飞机等现代武器装备军队，中国海军是世界第二大海军，其舰艇数量略少于400艘。
In Korea, Even with superior firepower, the US and UN allies could not defeat the Chinese troops and there were only 500,000 of them. Your perception that the US could beat China items from Korea., showing you don’t know the history of that conflict either.
The US could not defeat China in a conventional war
在朝鲜半岛，即使拥有强大的火力，美国与其联合国盟国也无法打败中国军队，当时中国军队在朝鲜半岛只部署了50万人。你认为美国可以打败中国，这说明你不知道那场冲突的历史。
美国无法在常规战争中打败中国。
Benjamin Cornia
A war with China would not be easy for the US. Having Nuclear weapons doesn’t make war easy. There are nine countries with nuclear weapons: US, China, UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. I’m pretty sure the Chinese would be able to steal the technology or get it from the Russians, or create it themselves, they have impressive nuclear technologies. China has veto power in the UN (along with Russia, UK, US, and France), so sanctions wouldn’t work. China has an enormous economy, so if the US tried to force China to not have nuclear weapons, China’s economic retaliation could create a global recession.
对美国来说，与中国开战并非易事，拥有核武器并不能使战争变得容易。有九个国家拥有核武器：美国、中国、英国、法国、俄罗斯、印度、巴基斯坦、朝鲜和以色列。我很肯定中国人能够从俄国人那里窃取或得到核技术，或者自己研发。中国（还有俄罗斯、英国、美国和法国）在联合国安理会拥有否决权，所以制裁不会奏效。中国拥有庞大的经济实力，因此如果美国试图迫使中国放弃拥有核武器，中国的经济报复可能造成全球经济衰退。
The United States tried to prevent North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, because the people of North Korea have routinely threatened to attack the United States. North Korea, is (respectfully) an extremely hostile nation.
Iran is not nearly as hostile as North Korea. There’s a reasonable argument to make that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, seeing how aggressive Israel has been to Iran and how Israel already has nuclear weapons. At least in the United States, there is this strange belief that the nation of Israel represents all Judeo-Christian beliefs, so when an American politician criticizes the actions of Israel or suggests reducing military aid to Israel, there is backlash of people calling that politician anti-Semitic and Unchristian.
美国试图阻止朝鲜获得核武器是因为朝鲜人经常威胁要攻击美国，朝鲜对美国来说是一个极端敌对的国家。
伊朗并不像朝鲜那样充满敌意。有一个合理的理由认为伊朗应该被允许拥有核武器，因为以色列已经拥有了核武器，而且以色列对伊朗一直咄咄相逼。不过至少在美国，人们有一种奇怪的信念，认为以色列民族代表了所有的犹太教和基督教的信仰，因此当一位美国政治家批评以色列的行为或建议减少对以色列的军事援助时，人们会强烈反对并称这位政治家是反犹太主义和反非基督教的。
Thomas Dollar, R&D, Production, Safety & Regulatory Affairs
Several key flaws in you question. One is the US could not easily beat China in a nuclear or non nuclear war. Remember that the two countries fought to a standstill in Korea - and China’s military is much stronger today than then. China also has a huge advantage in the numbers of troops and equipment.
你的问题存在几个关键缺陷。一是美国在核战争或非核战争中无法轻易击败中国。记住，这两个国家曾在朝鲜战争中打成平手，而今天的中国的军队比那时要强大得多，中国现在在兵力和装备方面也享有巨大的优势。
Next there’s no preventing a country with enough money and determination from developing a nuclear weapon. China had/has tremendous willpower, dedication, technology and money to develop their own weapons. North Korea has far less of all these resources yet they managed to build their own nuke. It’s only a matter of time before Iran achieve the same goal.
The best one country can do to prevent another country from building a nuke if they’re serious about it is delay their progress.
其次，美国无法阻止一个拥有足够资金和决心的国家发展核武器。中国有巨大的意志力、献身精神、技术和资金来发展自己的武器。朝鲜拥有的资源少得多，但他们也成功地制造了自己的核武器。伊朗实现同样的目标只是时间问题。
如果一个国家真的想阻止另一个国家制造核武器，那么最好的办法就是拖延他们的进度。
Duncan Cairncross, Retired Engineer，Lives in Gore, Southland, New Zealand2006–present
The US can easily beat China if China didn't have nuclear weapons, so why didn't the US prevent China from having it like how we did to prevent Iran or North Korea?
The USA cannot “Defeat China” in a conventional war
Just as China could not invade and defeat the USA in a conventional war
In both instances the defender has so much of an advantage and the logistics of invasion are immense
With Nuclear weapons the USA could destroy China - and China could destroy the USA
美国无法在常规战争中“打败中国”。
就像中国无法在常规战争中侵略和打败美国一样。
在这两种情况下，防御者都有很大的优势，而且入侵对后勤保障需求是巨大的。
有了核武器，美国可以摧毁中国，中国也可以摧毁美国。
Why didn't the US prevent China from having nukes?
Because science and engineering are universal and as soon as the very first nuke was detonated everybody knew they were possible which is 90% of the battle
Once the cat was out of the bag any mid sized or larger country had the ability to make Nukes if it was willing to invest the resources
为什么美国不阻止中国拥有核武器？
因为科学和工程学是普遍存在的，一旦第一枚核武器被引爆，那么每个人都会知道核武器是可以被制造出来的，这就解决了90%的难题。
一旦这个秘密被泄露，任何一个中等或稍大的国家只要愿意投入资源，他们都有能力制造核武器。
Kanthaswamy Balasubramaniam, Lawyer，Lives in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Initially USSR helped a lot. China sent 430 Engineers to Russia to learn everything to learn.
By the time the Sino - Soviet split took place, China had everything required with 430 trained experts now ready to train 7600 more.
Kennedy and Khrushchev and later Johnson and Brezhnev never thought for a second that China would evolve to become so big and so important. In 1967, China was like say Burma or say Syria is today
So they just shrugged when China did its tests in 63 and 67.
Worst part is their technology came from the US house of archives where books of 1945 declassified old and redundant technology was stored
They built a Premier Padmini while US and USSR were exploring Audis or Daimlers at that time.
As the Chinese say JOSS - meaning FATE.
最初苏联给了中国很多帮助，中国派出了430名工程师到苏联学习了一切需要学习的东西。
到中苏分裂发生时，中国已经具备了所需的一切，430名训练有素的专家已经准备好再培训7600人。
肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫以及后来的约翰逊和勃列日涅夫从来没有想过中国会发展成为如此庞大和重要的国家。因为在1967年，中国就像今天我们所说的缅甸或叙利亚。
所以当中国在1963和1967年进行核试验时，他们只是耸了耸肩。
Jeff Hall, Cold Warrior and technically savvy
A nation of a billion will never be an easy beat. Get over your hubris.
Next, China exploded their first Nuke in the 1960s. At that time, proliferation was not as big a deal as it became later: folks were still thinking that nukes had to be delivered by bomber. Missiles were still coming into their own.
Also, when China exploded their first nuke, there was no anti-proliferation treaty in place. That changed rapidly with the treaty being opened for signatures in 1968, the year after China’s first nuke, and went into effect in 1970. part of getting and making the anti-proliferation treaty stick was saying: if you’ve got’em now, we won’t fight it.
一个拥有十亿人口的国家永远不会是一个容易被打败的国家，请克服你的傲慢。
中国在20世纪60年代引爆了第一枚核武器。在那个时候，核扩散并不像后来那样被认为是件大事：当时人们仍然认为核武器必须由轰炸机运送，而现在核武器则由导弹自行发射。
而且，当中国进行第一次核试验时，还没有《防核扩散条约》。1968年，即中国第一次核试验的第二年，该条约开放供签署并于1970年生效，这种情况迅速改变。让《防核扩散条约》生效的一部分原因就是：如果你已经有了核武器，我们就不会反对你。
Doug Freyburger, lived in Austin, TX
“The US can easily beat China if China didn't have nuclear weapons, so why didn't the US prevent China from having it like how we did to prevent Iran or North Korea?”
Members of the nuclear club generally don’t want new members in the club. To join the nuclear club you have to earn it the hard way by science and industry. Evrey county that is a member of the nuclear club got there the hard way by developing their own. The US cooperated or opposed to various degrees.
The US cooperated with the UK to make nukes in the first place. Then the material was classified. The UK had to demand the materia
核俱乐部的成员一般不希望俱乐部有新成员加入。要加入核俱乐部，你必须通过在科学和工业上的艰苦努力来赢得它。核俱乐部的每一个成员都是在美国不同程度的合作和反对下，通过艰难的发展才拿到这一地位的。
美国首先与英国合作制造核武器，但他们对材料进行了保密，英国不得不要求美国提供这些材料。
Did the US cooperate with France or Israel when they made nukes? Mostly the US didn’t interfere. Maybe the US didn’t interfere, much, when India developed its own nukes.
The Soviet unx developed nukes on their own. How much did they help China? Less than the Soviets claimed. More than the Chinese admit. Their relationship was closer to US-France than to US-UK. China was not on the Soviet team that developed the first Soviet nukes. They earned their nukes the hard way.
法国研发核武器时美国是否提供了合作？大体上美国没有干预它们。也许美国在印度发展自己的核武器时也没有进行太多干涉。
苏联自行研制了核武器，他们对中国提供了多少帮助？比苏联宣称的要少，比中国人承认的要多。他们的关系更接近美法，而不是美英。中国不在苏联研制第一批核武器的研发队伍中，他们靠艰苦的努力研制了自己的核武器。
The US must have tried to interfere in China but our capability their after their Communist revolution was very low. We can’t just say “stop” and have other countries obey.
Pakistan and North Korea earned their nukes the hard way by their own effort, science and industry. No one much helped either, The Soviets may have leaked some math and data but less than the Soviets claimed.
美国肯定是想干涉中国的核武器研制，但我们无能为力，我们不能只说“停止”就让其他国家服从。
巴基斯坦和朝鲜依靠自己的努力、科学家和工业界艰难地获得了核武器，没人帮什么忙，苏联可能泄露了一些数据，但比俄罗斯声称的要少。
James Houk
The Taliban is far smaller and poorer equiped than US forces yet it as effectively driven the US forcess outof Afganistan. If the US is unable to easily beat small backward countries like Vietnam and Afganistan why do you believe the US could “easily beat” a high tech country like China when China has roughly twice as many active duty troops as the US does.
Truth is we stand far less of a chance of defeating China on the ground than Japan did in 1939. Americans have little taste for large numbers of body bags being flown home. Even if we turn the Chinese cities into radioactive dust I would not want to be one of the ground troops sent to fight in that dust as I expect the fight would make Afgahnistan look like a benign training exercise.
I also do not see the American public being willing to accept large numbers of radioactive body bags. On the other hand, what do I know? The US just lost more people than in WWII to COVID and some people are still entering the hospital claiming that Covid is a hoax with their dying breaths. with this level of wilful denial maybe we would simply classify the body bags as radioactive waste and go on with our lives.
塔利班比美军小得多，装备也差得多，但它却有效地将美军赶出了阿富汗。如果美国无法轻易打败越南和阿富汗这样的落后小国，为什么你认为美国可以“轻易打败”中国这样的高科技国家呢？要知道中国的现役部队数量大约是美国的两倍。
事实是，我们在地面上打败中国的概率远不如1939年的日本。美国人对大量的尸袋被空运回家没有什么兴趣，即使我们把中国的城市变成放射性尘埃，我也不想成为被派往在放射性尘埃中作战的地面部队之一，因为我预计这场战斗会让阿富汗战争看起来像一场良性的训练演习。
我也不认为美国公众愿意接受大量的放射性尸体袋。另一方面，美国刚刚在大流行中失去了比二战时更多的人，但一些人仍然在进入医院已经呼吸衰竭的情况下声称，新冠病毒是一场骗局。在这种故意否认的情况下，也许我们可以轻松地将尸体袋归类为放射性废物并继续我们的生活。
Doug Freyburger
You and the asker have conflated conquest with occupation. People who don’t study history do that all of the time, most especially conquerors.
Importantly the asker conflated conquest with occupation. Why fight China is the result would be an impossible occupation? History does give an answer that clearly did not occur to the asker - For your grand children to become Chinese. Across the millennia numerous conquerors swept across China. Some were ejected in the style of the Soviets being ejected from Afghanistan. More were assimilated into Chinese society while they expected Chinese society to be assimilated by them.
你和提问者把征服和占领混为一谈了，不研究历史的人总是这样。
为什么美国不可能占领中国？历史确实给出了一个提问者显然没有想到的答案——你的孙子孙女会成为中国人。几千年来，无数征服者横扫中国，其中一些人被驱逐出境，就像苏联人被驱逐出阿富汗一样，但更多的人在期待中国社会被他们同化的同时被中国社会同化了。
James Houk
My point is that the US would never get to the point of occupation.
I agree that occupation does not equal conquest. Conquest involves an intent to keep the territory involved. This does not work well without an absolute and brutal oppression. Killing all the men and breeding the women is a bit outdated but it tends to ensure that the former culture is destroyed and unable to rise again. An attempt to revive this procedure was recently seen under the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Historically, China also made use of this procedure and claims are being made of similar attrocities in Mongolia.
The US has a bad habit of wanting to blow things up, declare victory and go home. This will not work with China.
我的观点是，美国对中国的攻击永远不会达到占领的地步。
我同意占领并不等于征服。征服包括占领全部领土，如果没有绝对和残酷的压迫，这是行不通的。杀光所有的男人和女人有点过时了，但它往往会确保以前的文化被摧毁并无法重新崛起。
美国有一个坏习惯，就是想把事情搞砸，然后宣布胜利并回家，但这对中国不起作用。
Doug Freyburger
We are now well beyond the topic of the question. The question asked why the US didn’t prevent China from getting nukes. The answer was we couldn’t.
我们现在已经远远超出了这个问题的主题，问题是为什么美国不阻止中国获得核武器，答案是我们不能。
James Houk
Best we could do was fly a SR-71 through the cloud to take samples.
我们所能做的就是驾驶SR-71穿过云层采集中国核爆后的样本。
