英國還能負擔(dān)得起自我防衛(wèi)的費用嗎？

 
The British Army has been in decline for the past two decades. A growing need to deter any Russian threat, and potentially without US support, has highlighted the urgency NATO members like the UK face in boosting defense spending. But in Britain, that necessity comes against a backdrop of weak economic growth, rising borrowing costs and public ambivalence, possibly requiring major tradeoffs by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
 
過去二十年來，英國陸軍一直在走下坡路。如今，面對俄羅斯帶來的威脅以及可能失去美國支持的局面，北約成員國如英國提升國防開支的緊迫性愈發(fā)明顯。然而，在英國，這一必要性卻與經(jīng)濟增長疲軟、借貸成本上升和公眾態(tài)度冷漠的背景交織，首相基爾·斯塔默或許不得不在多方面做出艱難的取舍。
 

 
@EyeTech21
Britain: We once ruled half the world with red coats and muskets. Now we’re debating if we can afford bullets. History moves fast… but decline moves faster.
 
英國：我們曾經(jīng)靠紅衣軍和火槍統(tǒng)治過半個世界，現(xiàn)在卻在爭論買不買得起子彈。歷史發(fā)展得快，但衰退更快。
 
@Narweeboy
Britain global power was not muskets. It was their navy. Unfortunately, Britain has neither today.
 
英國的全球影響力靠的不是火槍而是海軍，可惜如今兩樣都沒了。
 
@ac1455
Tbf, it’s not as if Britain was doing financially well during its wars in the past either. Some wars bankrupt Britain so much it took decades to get back to just a healthy amount of debt.
 
說實話，英國在以往打仗的時候財政狀況也從未算好。有些戰(zhàn)爭讓英國幾乎破產(chǎn)，花了幾十年才把債務(wù)恢復(fù)到健康的水平。
 
@Music5362
For the UK, the most important area of defence isn't the army, it's air defence and marine defence, mainly navy and air force. Sure, the army will man the land base air defence systems. I think most Brits don't care if we don't have an army to go fight another Iraq or Afan war. Security for us is what we want.
 
對英國來說，最重要的防御不是陸軍，而是空防和海防，主要靠空軍和海軍。陸軍當(dāng)然會負責(zé)陸基防空系統(tǒng)。我想大多數(shù)英國人并不在乎我們有沒有陸軍再去打一場伊拉克或阿富汗那樣的戰(zhàn)爭。我們要的只是自身的安全。
 
@mikechannel888
the future is uk and eu send soldier to defense poland ,so we need a big army
 
未來英國和歐盟將要向波蘭派兵防御，所以我們需要一支龐大的軍隊。
 
@Music5362
All for helping other countries but only after our own security needs are satisfied.
 
我支持幫助其他國家，但前提是先確保我們自己的安全。
 
@mikechannel888
for homeland security,we need the navy Patrol Craft Squadron to stop the boat
 
為了本土安全，我們需要海軍巡邏艇中隊來攔截非法船只。
 
@Burty117
I haven't even started watching the video, I already know the answer, no, it cannot afford to defend itself, it can't even afford to pickup rubbish from citizens bins anymore, let alone militarily defend itself.
 
我甚至還沒看視頻，就已經(jīng)知道答案了：不，英國根本負擔(dān)不起自我防衛(wèi)的開銷。我們連從居民垃圾桶里收垃圾的錢都拿不出來了，更別提軍事防御了。
 
@RedsGoAway
City of London can afford it if politicians would make them
 
如果政客愿意讓倫敦金融城出錢，那他們是負擔(dān)得起的。
 
@gleitsonSalles
Just a reminder that the U.S defence speding is also falling since 2010 as a share gpd. So dont ask the Europeans for what you guys cant do either
 
提醒一下，美國的國防開支占GDP的比例從2010年起也在下降，所以你們自己做不到的事情，也別來要求歐洲人。
 
@MaxeMooseyBoo
Dude we literally just approved the biggest budget ever for spending as the US
 
兄弟，美國剛剛批準(zhǔn)了史上最大一筆的國防預(yù)算。
 
@gleitsonSalles
Still falling as a share of gdp
 
但作為GDP的占比還是在下降。
 
@arwinsp3358
Maxeboobooboy does not understand percentages and what relative to GDP means, I'm afraid
 
我看Maxeboobooboy根本不懂百分比，更不懂“相對于GDP”是什么意思。
 
@gleitsonSalles
Yep, it fell from 4.9% in 2009 to 3.4% in 2024. I think the U.S is not paying its bills
 
是的，從2009年的4.9%降到了2024年的3.4%。我覺得美國根本沒有好好掏錢。
 
@CosyCelsior
What's the point? The Americans can't build ships anymore, cracks in multiple hulls..
 
有什么好爭的？美國現(xiàn)在連造船都不會了，好幾艘船體都有裂縫。
 
@MaxeMooseyBoo
btw, I do understand that the GDP stuff. But I was trying to point out that Trump wants to add a 100+ billion dollars to the budget. That's still increasing the military spending as a percent of GDP. Secondly, GDP is fairly bad when looking at US military spending due to our economy's size (and when recessions are also included in the graph, as this skews it massively). Even when accounting for inflation, we are still increasing the military budget.
AND, what I like most to compare defense spending to the past is using a per capita model, which shows that it has been slightly increasing over the past 10 or 40 ish years (depends on if you include the recession again). Meaning that more of my personal tax-paying dollars is going to the military than before.
 
順便說一下，我當(dāng)然懂GDP的事，但我想指出的是特朗普打算給預(yù)算再加一千多億美元。那依然是把國防支出提高到了GDP的更高比例。其次，用GDP衡量美國的軍費本來就不太準(zhǔn)，因為我們的經(jīng)濟體量太大了，而且圖表里還包括了經(jīng)濟衰退期，誤差很大。即使考慮通脹，我們的軍費還是在漲。
而我最喜歡用來比較歷史國防支出的是人均支出模型，這個數(shù)據(jù)顯示在過去的十年或四十年里（取決于你是否納入經(jīng)濟衰退期），軍費的人均支出是略有上升的。也就是說我作為納稅人的錢比過去更多地流進了軍隊。
 
@FiremansGaming
They can't even defend themselves against dude with kitchen knives haha
 
他們連拿菜刀的哥們都防不住，還談什么國防，笑死人了。
 
@devanshsanghavi9999
First they need to decrease the cost of living by producing more electricity so that extra money that goes towards this can be used for other things which can increase GDP.
 
他們首先得通過增產(chǎn)電力來降低生活成本，這樣原本用于能源的那部分錢才能被用在其他能促進GDP增長的事情上。
 
@simonsaysno
I wouldn’t be surprised if more British men are willing to fight the state than to fight for it.
 
如果有更多英國人寧愿反抗國家，也不愿為它而戰(zhàn)，我一點都不會感到驚訝。
 
@Nomad-XA
Nato is way too dependent on the US. The US is the only country in nato that matters, the others are too small to matter
 
北約太依賴美國了。美國是唯一一個真正重要的國家，其余的國家規(guī)模都太小，根本沒有分量。
 
@Fab666.
That’s why the EU exists and needs to evolve into a military force alongside what it is now. It has potential to be what the US would prefer that it doesn’t.. and the US has repeatedly gotten in the way over the last decades to stop that happening
 
這正是歐盟存在的意義，也說明它需要在現(xiàn)有的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展出軍事力量。歐盟有潛力成為美國不希望看到的樣子……而過去幾十年里，美國一直在阻止這件事發(fā)生。
 
@Melior_Traiano
UK, France and Germany certainly aren't too small to matter. Both the UK and France are nuclear powers and collectively these three countries constitute a large part of global GDP. The only reason that their militaries are comparatively small is because they could rely on the US and spend the money that would've been used for defense on social services.
 
英國、法國和德國絕對不算無足輕重。英國和法國都是有核國家，這三國加起來也占據(jù)了全球GDP的大部分。他們軍力相對較小的唯一原因是因為他們可以依賴美國，把原本該花在國防上的錢用于社會服務(wù)。
 
@kyrusinek
I think its funny US citizens think any other army would of been allowed to get as big as the US, even allies like the UK.
Its not just EU being lazy.
 
我覺得很好笑，美國人以為其他國家的軍隊能被允許像美國一樣擴張，但就算是盟友英國也不行。
這可不是歐盟懶的問題。
 
@santostv.
Because thats was the deal, only france rejected it, it was by design, still usa citizens undermine eu/uk power while you they benefited from a weaker europe for decades.
 
因為那本來就是協(xié)定，只有法國拒絕了，這一切早就被設(shè)計好了。盡管美國人幾十年來一直從歐洲的虛弱中受益，但他們現(xiàn)在卻還要貶低歐盟和英國的實力。
 
@Janoip
Thats just not true as you even see now with US transferring its Air refueling flet to Germany its a mayor Transport Hub and Nato Europe Logistic Hub, has the biggest US hospital, drone transmission without that no middle east wars, produces more 155mm shells and other types than the us, the barrels, tracks (all ordered again this moth for modernization of us army)
 
這根本不是事實。你看現(xiàn)在美國都把空中加油機隊轉(zhuǎn)移到德國去了。德國是主要的運輸樞紐，也是北約在歐洲的后勤中心，還是美國最大的海外醫(yī)院的所在地。無人機信號傳輸也依賴這里，沒有它中東戰(zhàn)爭都打不了。德國現(xiàn)在生產(chǎn)的155毫米炮彈和其他彈藥比美國還多，炮管和履帶也都在生產(chǎn)——這個月又下了訂單，用于美軍的現(xiàn)代化升級。
 
@panmichael5271
Duplication in defence R and D and overlapping roles reduces the multiplier effect. Answer: work with allies in Europe to streamline defense procurement and investment in R and D. The money is there. The format is skewed towards inefficiencies.
 
國防研發(fā)中的重復(fù)投入和職責(zé)重疊降低了乘數(shù)效應(yīng)。解決方案：與歐洲盟友合作，簡化國防采購流程和研發(fā)投資結(jié)構(gòu)。資金其實是有的，只是體系太低效了。
 
@yoshua9676
We'd defend the country like in WW2. We don't want to get involved in foreign wars.
Focus defence on that and protecting trade; that's all.
 
我們會像二戰(zhàn)那樣保衛(wèi)國家，我們不想卷入海外戰(zhàn)爭。
國防只要專注于這一點，還有保護貿(mào)易就行了。
 
@CarltonTweedle
Back in the day the leaders would charge into battle, I think if there is war every MP should be on the front line a long side the PM and the ministers. Instead of being cowards and sending the young men and women off to war. This is truth.
 
以前的領(lǐng)袖都是沖在最前線的。我認(rèn)為如果真的打仗，每個議員都應(yīng)該和首相、大臣們一起上前線。別再做懦夫，把年輕的男女送上戰(zhàn)場。這才是公道。
 
@iggy5347
British need to take india ,pakistan and singapore and hongkong back to make british empire great again
 
英國得把印度、巴基斯坦、新加坡和香港（特區(qū)）都收回來，這樣才能讓大英帝國再度偉大。
 
@feranicignis1112
100k troops has a nice ring to it. People are not the main expense though, millitary equipment even just munitions is incredibly expensive for some reason.
 
十萬人的部隊聽起來挺響亮的，但人并不是主要的開銷，真正貴的是裝備，光是彈藥就貴得離譜，不知為何。
 
@OXO302
Do you know where we spend our money? I'll tell you: We spent 300 BILLION last year on benefits for elderly and disabled people and even people who are capable of work. We also spent 220 billion on the NHS - we spend half a trillion every year on welfare.
 
你知道我們的錢都花哪兒了嗎？我告訴你：去年我們花了三千億在老年人、殘障人士，甚至是有工作能力的人身上，我們還給NHS花了2200億——我們每年有半萬億都砸在福利上。
 
@techtactics788
Not entirely true. It's ￡179 billion. The rest also covers such as pensions which technically is already paid for by pensioners.
 
這說得不完全對。其實是1790億英鎊，其余的包括養(yǎng)老金——嚴(yán)格來說那是養(yǎng)老金領(lǐng)取者自己繳納的。
 
@feranicignis1112
And even with all that spending its not enough, everything is incredibly expensive these days.
 
可就算花了這么多錢，還是不夠?，F(xiàn)在什么都貴得離譜。
 
@thomaslanders2073
So you're telling me that after importing millions of South Asians the UK today is now weaker than decades ago when it was a homogeneous society? Who could have seen that coming?
 
所以你是說在引入了幾百萬南亞人之后，英國現(xiàn)在比幾十年前那個同質(zhì)化社會還弱？真是“誰能想到”??？
 
@Narweeboy
Yeah! We Indians had the same feeling when your lot came over to India 300 years ago
 
沒錯！你們?nèi)倌昵皝碛《鹊臅r候，我們印度人也有同樣的感覺。
 
@Mike-j3b1k
It's nitpicking, but the 72,000 figure, does not include the Gurkhas or Royal Marines, which adds another 10,000 or so troops.
 
雖然有些吹毛求疵，但那7.2萬的數(shù)字并不包括廓爾喀和皇家海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊，加上他們的話大約還有一萬兵力。
 
@pranavjagdish
I literally read this as “Can the UK defend Israel” and you know what - thats way more important for British elites than defending their own country :)
 
我一開始還真看成了“英國能否保衛(wèi)以色列”，說實話——對英國的精英們來說，這可能確實比保衛(wèi)自己國家還重要吧 :)
 
@PhilGregory101
It is not about money, it is about whether or not it is moral and ethical to support such a regime, and the majority of British people say no-fking-way, but hey-ho, we live in a democracy where our politicians know best and are able to ignore the publics wishes! So much for western democracy.
 
這根本不是錢的問題，而是你是否有道德和倫理地去支持那樣一個政權(quán)。大多數(shù)英國人都表示“絕不可能”，但哈，我們生活在一個“民主國家”，政客們最懂事，他們可以無視人民的意愿！這就是所謂的西方民主了。
 
@RestlessMonarch
We can afford it. It would just require either realocated spending, taxe rises, or more borrowing. But the government keeps making it harder for themselves with their silly self imposed fiscal rules.
 
我們是負擔(dān)得起的，只是需要重新調(diào)整開支、提高稅收或者加大借貸力度。但政府老是自己給自己設(shè)限制，搞什么愚蠢的財政規(guī)則，把事兒弄得越來越難。
 
@SirFlukealot
If we can afford to bail out banks and make them face 0 consequences, then we can spend on defence surely
 
如果我們有錢救銀行、還讓他們不用承擔(dān)任何后果，那肯定也能負擔(dān)得起國防支出。
 
@Danji_Coppersmoke
Britain mentally needs to drop the "Great" in Great Britain. It is too expensive to afford the "Great".
 
英國應(yīng)該從精神上摘掉“Great Britain”中的“Great”，因為“偉大”太貴了，我們負擔(dān)不起。
 
@Heshhion
Australia has less than 50k troops. Most of them part time. The common wealth is a shjt show..
 
澳大利亞軍隊還不到五萬人，大多數(shù)還是兼職的。整個英聯(lián)邦就是個爛攤子……
 
@danw4237
Most are actually full-time. Of the 45,000 that make up the Army, approximately 28,000 are full-time, while 15,000 are part-time.
 
其實大多數(shù)是全職的。在這4.5萬的軍隊里，大概有2.8萬是全職軍人，1.5萬是兼職軍人。
 
@samyueldanyo8679
Why would you need a big standing army? Do you understand how expensive that is and the opportunity cost in terms of GDP? UK and Australia are and should be naval powers.
 
你們?yōu)槭裁捶且恢嫶蟮某滠姡磕銈冎滥怯卸噘F嗎？那對GDP來說是多大的機會成本？英國和澳大利亞現(xiàn)在是、將來也應(yīng)該是海權(quán)國家。
 
@J.Goldberg73
UK empire still thinks it's living in the 1900s, the empire is dead. The whole army can fit in Wembley Stadium, with plenty of vacant seats.
 
英國還活在1900年代的大英帝國的夢里，但帝國早死了。現(xiàn)在整個軍隊都能塞進溫布利球場，還能空出不少座位。
 
@Melior_Traiano
The British Army has always been small in peace time.
 
和平時期，英軍一向都很小。
 
@crocsbob
did abit of research , british army is a little over 100,000. truly astonishing figure. a countrys whole army personnel could fit in a single stadium
 
我查了點資料，英國軍隊的總?cè)藬?shù)剛剛超過十萬。真是個驚人的數(shù)字——一個國家的全部軍人竟然能擠進一個球場。
 
@1132539
It's a shame to see the once mighty British Navy and Army fall to such a sorry state.
 
看到曾經(jīng)強大的英國海陸軍落到這副模樣，真是令人唏噓。
 
@janseyfarth9489
My best friend is a lieutenant in the army. One factor not mentioned in this U.K army's crazy focus on DEI. For years, they have been actively rejecting white working class Brits over a push for minorities. My comment is absolutely not related to race in any way, but common sense. How likely is someone whose background and faith is rooted in another country going to be willing to fight for queen and country, and how likely is a working class lad from a council estate with a lack of other options and in great need of an opportunity going to be willing to do so? Its common sense.
 
我最好的朋友是英軍的一名中尉。有一點沒人提到——英國軍隊如今瘋狂地強調(diào)多元、公平和包容（DEI）。這些年他們一直在排斥白人工人階級，而更傾向于招募少數(shù)族裔。我說這些完全和種族無關(guān)，只是基于常識。一個出生背景和信仰根植于其他國家的人，有多大可能心甘情愿地為這個國家戰(zhàn)斗？而一個來自貧困社區(qū)、別無出路、迫切需要機會的工人階級小伙子，有多大可能愿意為國家奮斗？這只是常識問題。
 
@griffalo8386
I regret to say that you have been misinformed. While it is true that the Army has, at times, increased its recruitment from Commonwealth nations, this is not related to DEI initiatives. Instead, it reflects the evolving nature of our society and the shifting aspirations of young people. This is a challenge faced by every Western nation, not just the UK, and it is certainly not about prioritising one group over another.
Having served in the Army for over 20 years and still being actively involved, including a recent assignment at a training establishment, I can personally attest to this reality. While your best friend is undoubtedly entitled to their opinion, and their perspective is likely shaped by their own experiences, their relatively short time in the Service limits their ability to make a comprehensive assessment based on fact. As a recently commissioned Lieutenant, they would not yet have had exposure to the Army recruitment processes beyond that of an officer, Army recruitment policy, or conducted an assignment at initial training establishments such as Pirbright, Harrogate, or Catterick. Worth checking out a recently passing out parade at the Army Foundation College.
Finally, it’s worth noting that there are countless examples throughout history of individuals from diverse backgrounds and faiths—Indians, Sikhs, Fijians, Nepalis, and many others—who have willingly and bravely fought for our little King and Country. This is a testament to the enduring spirit of service that transcends nationality and creed. If you are still not convinced I suggest checking out Johnson Beharry from Grenada or Dipprasad Pun from Nepaul, both of whom have been awarded some of our nation's highest honours - Yet, look a little deeper, and you’ll discover a rich and beautiful tapestry of peoples who have defended these islands for centuries.
 
很遺憾地說，你被誤導(dǎo)了。雖然確實有些時候英軍在英聯(lián)邦國家中加大了招募比例，但這和多元、公平、包容政策無關(guān)。那反映的是我們社會結(jié)構(gòu)的演變，以及年輕一代的志向變化。這是所有西方國家面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，不只是英國，也絕不是在偏袒哪個群體。
我本人在軍中服役超過二十年，現(xiàn)在仍參與其中，最近還在訓(xùn)練基地任職。我可以親身證明這些說法并不屬實。你的朋友當(dāng)然有權(quán)表達自己的觀點，他們的看法很可能是出于自身經(jīng)歷，但作為剛剛獲得軍官任命的年輕中尉，他們還沒有機會接觸軍隊完整的招募機制、政策，或者到像Pirbright、Harrogate、Catterick這樣的基礎(chǔ)訓(xùn)練中心輪崗。如果能看看最近陸軍基礎(chǔ)學(xué)院的結(jié)業(yè)閱兵，你就能理解更多。
最后，我想指出歷史上有無數(shù)來自不同背景和信仰的人——印度人、錫克人、斐濟人、尼泊爾人等等——都自愿并英勇地為我們的國家作戰(zhàn)，這種服務(wù)精神早已超越國籍和信仰。如果你仍然不信，那就去了解一下來自格林納達的Johnson Beharry或來自尼泊爾的Dipprasad Pun，他們都獲得了國家最高榮譽之一。再往下看，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)有著悠久歷史的多元群體，世世代代在保衛(wèi)這片島嶼。