How the U.S. Wins the Coming Arctic War
By David Axe
January 11, 2011 2:38 pm
Translation by Autumnson Blog
The strategic implications of steadily melting Arctic ice. It’s one of those perennial stories of the U.S. defense trade, alongside “the end of U.S. air supremacy,” “cyber Pearl Harbor” and “China conquers the world.”
穩定地融化中的北極冰層戰略意義，它是其中一個美國國防貿易的常年故事，同時有“美國制空權的結束”、“網絡珍珠港”和“中國征服世界。”
The story always starts and ends the same way. Up top, how global climate change will, by 2015 or so, result in ice-free Arctic summers — allowing shipping and oil and natural-gas extraction. At the bottom, how the U.S. isn’t doing enough to secure its slice of the Arctic pie. I should know: in weaker moments, I’ve written this tale, too.
故事總是一樣的開始和結束，上頂，全球氣候變化將如何，在2015年左右，導致無冰的北極夏天 - 容許航運及石油和天然氣的開採。在底部，美國如何做得不足夠以確保它的一塊北極餡餅。我應該知道：在較弱的時刻，我寫出這個故事。
But these tales, my versions included, usually omit two vital points: that Arctic conflict is unlikely to occur at all; and even if it does, the U.S. will have an overwhelming advantage over any rival.
但這些故事，包括我的版本，通常漏去兩個要點：即北極衝突是全不可能發生；和即使發生，美國對任何對手都將有壓倒性的優勢。
The Washington Post was the latest to repeat the Arctic-war theme, in a story published yesterday. “The Arctic is believed to hold nearly a quarter of the world’s untapped natural resources and a new passage could shave as much as 40 percent of the time it takes for commercial shippers to travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific,” Jacquelyn Ryan wrote.
華盛頓郵報是最新的去重複北極戰爭的主題，在昨天發佈的一個故事。 “北極被認為持有近四分之一的世界未開採的天然資源，和一條新通道可以刮去高達百分之四十花費的時間，為商業貨船從大西洋航行到太平洋，”杰奎琳瑞恩說。
But, she added, “government and military officials are concerned the United States is not moving quickly enough to protect American interests in this vulnerable and fast-changing region.” Specifically, the U.S. does not have enough icebreakers or permanent bases on the Alaskan north slope. Canada and Russia, by contrast, are buying ice-hardened Arctic ships and building new facilities to enforce their Arctic claims, Ryan pointed out.
但她補充：“政府和軍方官員關注美國行動不夠快去保護美國的利益，在這個脆弱和快速變化的區域。”具體來說，美國沒有足夠的破冰船或永久基地在阿拉斯加北部斜坡。相反，加拿大和俄羅斯正在買入冰硬的北極船和建設新設施，以執行它們的北極宣示，瑞恩指出。
The thing is, it’s not icebreakers and patches of wind-blasted tarmac that would really matter in some future North Pole showdown. In the Arctic, as in any sea battle, American nuclear attack submarines — quiet, versatile and lethal — would make all the difference. U.S. subs have been sneaking around under the Arctic ice, and occasionally surfacing, for decades. Today, they even carry geologists and other scientists in order to help map Arctic mineral deposits.
“In addition to being more heavily armed than most foreign boats, U.S. submarines generally have superior quieting and combat systems, better-trained crewmen, and much more rigorous maintenance standards,” Bob Work wrote in 2008, before becoming Navy undersecretary. “As a result, the U.S. submarine force has generally been confident that it could defeat any potential undersea opponent, even if significantly outnumbered.”
But in the Arctic, facing only the Canadians, Russians, Danes and Norwegians — none of whom have large or healthy sub fleets — the U.S. Navy’s 50 Los Angeles-, Seawolf- and Virginia-class subs would be more numerous as well as more powerful.
And besides, an Arctic war is highly unlikely, at best. “Militarized conflict over the Arctic is unlikely, and regional disputes are unlikely to cause an overall deterioration in relations between or among polar nations,” the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concluded in a 2009 conference. “Security issues should not be sensationalized in order to attract attention towards the Arctic.”
But it’s rare anyone writes stories about how we’ve got enough weapons — and don’t really need them, besides. After all, it’s the sensational stories about shortages and looming disaster that sell newspapers.
Photo: Navy
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/how-the-u-s-wins-the-coming-arctic-war/
俄羅斯宣布將在北極地區建造10座緊急情況中心
沒有留言:
發佈留言