[2021-02-16]你对美国慢慢丧失相对中国的军事优势有什么看法？

Kevin Randolf former Technical Manager
My views are uninterrupted by bullshit and propaganda, unclouded by America's social and economic decline.
The USA has a military bigger than the next 10 largest militarys combined, the edge that the USA has is planet sized and as such it requires drama to be created to justify its disgusting cost!
This question is trying to create a drama that doesn't exist, if the world surrendered it's military to the USA, the USA would create an alien invasion to justify its military spending.
What has happened, is that China has become successful beyond the threat that Japan reached in the 1980’s so America's usual tactics of extortion and blackmail won't be enough to cripple China, however if the USA blockades China's main trade routes, like the South China sea, by creating an imaginary drama, it would be devastating.

【回答】前技术经理
我的观点不受胡说八道和政治宣传的干扰，也不受美国社会和经济衰退的影响。
美国拥有的军事力量比在美国之后排名前十的军事力量加起来还要强大，美国拥有的优势相当于地球大小，因此它需要制造故事，来证明其令人作呕的成本是合理的！
这个问题试图创造一个根本不存在的故事——如果全世界的军事力量都向美国投降，那么美国就会创造一个外星人入侵的故事，来证明其军事开支的合理性。
事实上，中国已经成功超越了日本在20世纪80年代所达到的威胁，所以美国一贯的敲诈和勒索策略不足以削弱中国，然而，如果美国通过制造一出虚构的故事来封锁中国的主要贸易通道，比如南中国海，那将是毁灭性的。

China recognises this fact and have moved to defend that route, not threaten free navigation as the USA has claimed!!
The USA is the only threat to free navigation in the south China sea.
So go ahead and create more homeless people in the USA to pay for your military, but stop blaming everyone else to justify the results!

中国认识到了这一事实，并已经采取行动捍卫这一航线，而不是像美国所声称的那样威胁自由航行！
美国才是南中国海自由航行的唯一威胁。
所以，继续吧，继续在美国制造更多无家可归的人来支付你们的军费，但是停止指责其他人，来证明结果的合理性！
-------------------------------------------------------

Linda Hill
Thank you Kevin. This is exactly what this question is trying to do.

【回复】谢谢你，Kevin。这正是这个问题想要做的。

Clayton Green
the above is utter nonsense from beginning to end

【回复】以上这些从头到尾都是无稽之谈

John Fenn
No Clayton, you need to look at this. The world is totally fed up with the US military, we would rather take our chances with the Chinese. At least they dont get our people killed on a regular basis.

【回复】不，Clayton。你得看看这点，这个世界已经完全受够了美国军队，我们宁愿和中国人碰碰运气。至少他们不会让我们的人民经常被杀害。
-------------------------------------------------------

Felix Su works at Self-Employment
The US is NOT losing it’s military edge over China. The thing about warfare is local superiority.
It doesn’t matter if you have a million troops or 500 ships. If you can only bring 1000 troops and 1 ship to the fight while the other side can bring more and the tech is comparable then you will lose.
That’s why there is an old saying. Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.
China has no intention of fighting the US anywhere in the world except defending it’s territory. This makes it very difficult for the US.
US ships have a very limited ammo supply. When the ship runs out of ammo. It is dead in the water. China has a virtually unlimited ammo supply near China. Let’s assume that the US SM-6 is magical. It will hit anything every single time (not but we will use this assumption). Each ship carries 100 SM-6 interceptor missiles.

【回答】在自雇人士工作
美国并没有丧失相对于中国的军事优势，战争的关键在于局部优势。
不管你是有一百万军队还是五百艘船。如果你只能带一千名士兵和一艘战舰去战斗，而另一方可以带来更多的兵力和技术相当，那么你就会输了。
这就是为什么有一句老话：业余人士谈论战略，专业人士谈论后勤。
除了保卫自己的领土，中国无意在世界任何地方与美国作战。这对美国来说非常困难。
美国军舰的弹药供应非常有限。当军舰弹药耗尽的时候。它就已经死在水上了。中国在中国附近的弹药供应几乎是无限的。让我们假设美国的SM-6防空导弹很神奇。它每次都会拦截任何东西(不会，但我们假设有这能力)。每艘舰艇装载100枚SM-6防空导弹。

If China fires 101 anti-ship missiles at each US ship, guess what happens? The ship sinks. And China isn’t planning on just that. They have also planned to shoot 2 DF-26 and 2 DF-21 hypersonic missiles which the US can’t intercept at each US ship along with regular and stealthy anti-ship missiles.
So while the US has the edge on China, it doesn’t matter near China. China has tech that is close enough that they can put a huge hurt on the US Navy. That is why the US hasn’t attacked China. Also there’s China’s thermonuclear weapons.

如果中国向每艘美国军舰发射101枚反舰导弹，猜猜会发生什么？船沉了。但中国并没有这样的打算。他们还计划发射2枚东风-26和2枚东风-21高超音速导弹，美国无法在每艘舰船上一起拦截常规和隐形反舰导弹。
所以，尽管美国比中国有优势，但中国附近并不担心。中国拥有足够接近的技术，可以给美国海军造成巨大的伤害。这就是为什么美国没有攻击中国。还有中国的热核武器。
-------------------------------------------------------

Sunarto Yusuf
Logistic matters! It took the US army quite long to assemble an army to invade Iraq. They have to ship everything to Saudi Arabia. Tanks, soldiers, weapons. Ammo etc. The only place the US can assemble a force to invade China is from Japan and South Korea. The question is, will China allow the US to build up their military there? Will these host countries allow the US to use their base for attack? Will American wants to send their son to die in China? Will Americans prepare to die in a nuclear exchange with China? I am sure the think tank and the pentagon are debating all this.

【回复】后勤很重要！美国军队花了很长时间才集结一支军队入侵伊拉克。他们不得不把所有东西都运到沙特阿拉伯。坦克，士兵，武器。弹药等。美国只有在日本韩国集结力量才能入侵中国。问题是，中国会允许美国在那里加强军事建设吗？这些东道国会允许美国利用他们的基地进行攻击吗？美国人会把他们的儿子送到中国去送死吗？美国人会准备在与中国的核战争中死去吗？我相信智囊团和五角大楼正在讨论这一切。

Felix Su
There’s no debate. The US knows they will lose. Japan and SK isn’t stupid unless they want to get invaded by China and turned into a protectorate to prevent invasion of China.
The Rand corporation and the Pentagon have already done studies and simulations on an attack on China. The US lost 90% of it’s stealth aircraft and that was over 10 years ago before China had stealth aircraft also and radars that can detect stealth.
This is why the US resorted to kidnapping Meng Wangzhou and lies about national security. In the US as long as national security is invoked, no judicial process is needed.
And the US is still losing the economic contest.

【答者回复】毫无疑问。美国知道他们会输。日本和韩国并不愚蠢，除非他们想被中国入侵，变成受保护国以防止中国的入侵。
美国兰德公司和五角大楼已经对攻击中国进行了研究和模拟。美国损失了90%的隐形战机，这是在10年前，中国还没有隐形战机和能够探测隐形的雷达。
这就是为什么美国采取绑架孟晚舟和关于国家安全的谎言。在美国，只要援引国家安全，就不需要司法程序。
而美国仍然在经济竞争中失利。
-------------------------------------------------------

Lance Chambers Been involved in US politics since Kennedy assassination.
I believe that we’re all starting to accept that China will end up with the largest economy in the world in 5 - 10 years.
However, although they will soon end up with the worlds largest economy they will not expand its military much beyond where they are today. They do not invade other nations they do not go to war with other nations.
What they have been saying for about 40 or so years is that they would prefer to see the worlds most powerful nations to all work together to bring peace and prosperity to the world as fast as we can. The reason they want to do that is because, when we have peace, trade is made easier and that is how China makes most of its money.

【回答】自从肯尼迪遇刺后就一直参与美国政治。
我相信我们都开始接受中国将在5到10年内成为世界上最大的经济体。
然而，尽管他们很快就会成为世界上最大的经济体，但是他们的军事力量不会超过现在的水平。他们不侵略其他国家，他们不与其他国家开战。
大约40年来，他们一直在说，他们希望看到世界上最强大的国家齐心协力，尽快为世界带来和平与繁荣。他们这样做的原因是，当我们拥有和平时，贸易就会变得更容易，而这正是中国最赚钱的方式。

But there are a host of other issues with the US military.
"Lost Generation in American"
That’s a concern among current and former defense officials and military analysts, one of whom told Breaking Defense earlier this year that in war games simulating great-power conflict in which the United States fights Russia and China, the United States “gets its ass handed to it.”
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum last week, Admiral Philip Davidson, who oversees U.S. military forces in Asia, called China “the greatest long-term strategic threat to the United States and the rules-based international order.” He described China’s rapid military buildup in nearly every domain—air, sea, land, space, and cyber—and said that while China’s capabilities don’t outnumber America’s in the region for now, it’s possible they could overtake the United States’ within the next five years.

但美国军方还存在一系列其它问题。
“美国迷惘的一代”
这是现任和前任国防官员和军事分析人士的担忧，其中一人在今年早些时候告诉《国防热点》杂志，在模拟大国冲突的战争游戏中，美国与俄罗斯和中国的交战中，美国“惨败告终”
上个星期在阿斯彭安全论坛上发表讲话时，美国海军上将菲利普 · 戴维森称中国是“对美国和基于规则的国际秩序构成的最大长期战略威胁”。戴维森负责管理美国在亚洲的军事力量，他描述了中国在几乎所有领域的快速军事建设，包括空中、海上、陆地、太空和网络领域，他还表示，尽管中国目前在该地区的军事实力还没有超越美国，但他们有可能在未来五年内超越美国。

"How the U.S. Could Lose a War With China"
Dominic Tierney, a professor at Swarthmore College and the author of multiple books about how America wages war, may know the reason why.
He believes the US can still successfully fight the wars of yesteryear — World War-style conflicts — but hasn’t yet mastered how to win wars against insurgents, which are smaller fights against groups within countries. The problem is the US continues to involve itself in those kinds of fights.
“We’re still stuck in this view that war is like the Super Bowl: We meet on the field, both sides have uniforms, we score points, someone wins, and when the game ends you go home,” he told me. “That’s not what war is like now.
The US military is currently mired in conflicts in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. It’s hard to see any end in sight — especially an end where the United States is the victor, however that’s defined.

“美国如何输掉与中国的战争”
斯沃斯莫尔学院教授多米尼克•蒂尔尼著有多本关于美国如何发动战争的书，他可能知道其中的原因。
他认为，美国仍然可以成功地打赢过去的战争(类似于二战时期的冲突)，但尚未掌握如何打赢对抗叛乱分子的战争。叛乱分子战争是指针对国家内部团体的较小规模战争。问题在于，美国继续卷入这类斗争。
“我们仍然认为战争就像超级碗：我们在赛场上相遇，双方都穿着制服，我们得分，有人获胜，比赛结束后你就可以回家了”他告诉我，“现在的战争不是这样的。”
美国军队目前深陷在阿富汗、伊拉克、叙利亚和也门等国的冲突中。很难看到任何结束的迹象，尤其是美国胜利的结局，不管这种结局是怎样定义的。”

China leads the world in patent applications and patents accepted.
They dominate in number of scientific papers accepted by reputable journals.
They also have the largest number of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and it is science that will create the worlds future. When you fall behind in STEM your military will not be able to maintain its supremacy.
The sad thing is that the US is falling behind in a host of fields that are vital to its future.

中国在专利申请和专利受理方面处于世界前列。
他们在被知名期刊认可的科学论文数量方面中占主导地位。
他们还拥有数量最多的 STEM(科学、技术、工程和数学)人才，正是科学创造了世界的未来。当你在科学、技术、工程、数学方面落后时，你的军队将无法保持其优势地位。
令人悲哀的是，美国在许多对其未来至关重要的领域正在落后。
-------------------------------------------------------

George Hsia
The US has managed to maintain a great deal of military edge over China or any other nation — only financially. In military terms, the US has lost far more wars than it has won in the postwar era. But war for the US is business — a highly profitable business for its “military-industrial complex”. Therefore, the US can lose many wars, but there has to be “business as usual”. The scariest part of this human stupidity is that the US is under the delusion that it possesses the military might to win any war, including nuclear war, if it wants to. And if it felt threatened by other nuclear powers, it might launch the first strike.
Forging 21st-Century Strategic Deterrence

【回复】美国设法保持了相对于中国或其它任何国家的巨大军事优势——只是在财政上。就军事而言，美国输掉的战争远远多于战后赢得的战争。但对美国而言，战争是一项商业活动，对于美国的“军事工业复合体”而言，这是一项高利润的业务。因此，美国可能会输掉许多战争，但必须保持“一切照旧”。这种人类愚蠢行为最可怕的地方在于，美国有一种错觉，认为自己拥有赢得任何战争(包括核战争)的军事力量，只要它愿意。如果它感觉到其他核大国的威胁，它可能会发动第一次打击。

William To
For all of the above it does not matter if half or more of the Chinese-speaking world still sees the USA as some kind of “beacon of humanity” and the Chinese lost hope of a better country on themselves.

【回复】尽管如此，如果一半或更多的华人世界仍将美国视为某种“人类的灯塔”，而中国人对自己建设更好的国家失去了希望，那么以上一切都无关紧要了。
-------------------------------------------------------

Bill Williams Social Scientist, Researcher, Author
The U.S. military budget of the US is 3 times that of China and is a combination of the next ten highest spending countries in the world.
China will not make the mistake of interfering and invading other countries like the US did.
China hasn't had any war with any country for the past 40 years. Xinjiang and Tibet have been autonomous regions of China since 1750s. The US, on the other hand, invaded Afghanistan in 2001, followed by Iraq over a WMD lie and is now trying to invade Iran.
China is the third biggest country in the world in terms of land mass. Their reforestation of deserts [1] will provide more than enough food and minerals for all its people.
Video NOT in whole or in part funded by any individual, government or NGO.

【回答】社会科学家，研究员，作家
美国的军费预算是中国的三倍，是世界上十大军费开支最高的国家之一。
中国不会犯像美国那样干涉和侵略其他国家的错误。
在过去的四十年里，中国从未与任何国家发生过战争。新疆和西藏自18世纪50年代以来一直是中国的自治区。另一方面，美国在2001年入侵阿富汗，接着是伊拉克，因为美国谎称伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器，现在美国正试图入侵伊朗。
就国土面积而言，中国是世界第三大国家。他们在沙漠中重新造林，将为所有的人民提供足够的食物和矿物质。

Therefore, they require only a budget that is sufficient to protect their country. Aircraft carriers are built to protect their distant islands in the South China Seas, like the UK that requires them to protect Falkland islands which are much, much farther away near Argentina.
The time of the US lording all over the world is changing though. The sooner they learn how to coexist and cooperate with EU, Africa Union, India, Russia and China, the better for world peace.
To me, in order to make a peaceful world for our kids to live in, lies and half-truths should NOT be left unchallenged.

所以，他们只需要足以保护他们国家的预算。航空母舰的建造是为了保护中国南海的遥远岛屿，就像英国要求航空母舰保护远在阿根廷附近的福克兰群岛一样。
然而，美国称霸世界的时代正在改变。他们越早学会如何与欧盟、非洲联盟、印度、俄罗斯和中国共存与合作，就越有利于世界和平。
对我来说，为了让我们的孩子生活在一个和平的世界里，谎言和半真半假的事实不应该被置之不理。

Mike Chiew former Retired Marketing Manager at Carest Marketing
Military establishment of country is basically to show that they're capable to defending their own soil when being attacked by enemy.
If US does loose the military edge to China it will not spell disaster because US has some very strong alliance with her.
In reality US and China will never like to fight a war with each other, why? If countries with such excellent economy, fantastic tec development and strong credential in finance are basically on equal terms internationally. If they're smart there are many areas which they can harness benefit with greater cooperation to make each other even bigger, stronger and better than the rest of the world. Then the world will have two very powerful economies to stabilize the globalised world and do good for our mankind. There are over 270+ countries in the world, we need these two countries (US and China) to lead all of them therefore one in the West Hemisphere and another in the East Hemisphere are the best arrangement ever.

【回答】卡莱斯特市场部前市场经理
国家的军事建设，基本上就是表明他们有能力在受到敌人攻击时保卫自己的国土。
如果美国真的失去了对中国的军事优势，也不会造成灾难，因为美国与中国有着一些非常强大的联盟关系。
事实上，美国和中国永远不会喜欢互相打仗，为什么？如果这些经济发达、技术发展迅速、金融信誉良好的国家在国际上基本上是平等的。如果他们够聪明，他们可以在许多领域通过更大的合作获益，让彼此比世界其他地方更大、更强、更好。然后，世界将有两个非常强大的经济体来稳定全球化的世界，并为我们的人类做贡献。世界上有超过270个国家，我们需要这两个国家(美国和中国)来领导他们，所以一个在西半球，另一个在东半球是有史以来最好的安排。

Aozao Zhou former Product Manager
In recent years, due to the rapid upgrading of PLA equipment, PLA has narrowed the military distance with the United States, but it does not mean that PLA has changed its military status with the United States. China's military strength is still far behind that of the United States.
Of course, if it continues to develop, China may change its military balance with the U.S. at home, then the second island chain, the third island chain, and even finally the military balance with the U.S. at home.
I don't want a war, and I don't want China to be suppressed by the United States in many places. Therefore, it is inevitable to develop its own military power.
The military expenditure of the United States is much more than that of China. However, due to the huge waste in the United States, the price of a warship or aircraft of the same class manufactured by the United States is far higher than that of PLA.
In addition, several phenomena need to be avoided in China's military development. First, in order to develop the military, China should invest all its national strength in military development, which will lead to the decline of people's living standards and eventually division. Second, Japanization and military development led to the expansion of military power, which eventually turned into militarism and launched a war of aggression against foreign countries.

【回答】前产品经理
近年来，由于解放军装备的快速升级，解放军缩小了与美国的军事距离，但这并不意味着解放军改变了相对美国的军事地位。中国的军事实力仍然远远落后于美国。
当然，如果继续发展下去，中国可能会改变在国内与美国的军事平衡，然后是第二岛链，第三岛链，甚至最终是与美国在其国内的军事平衡。
我不希望发生战争，我也不希望中国在许多地方受到美国的压制。所以，发展自己的军事力量是必然的。
美国的军费开支比中国多得多。然而，由于美国的巨大浪费，美国制造的一艘军舰或同等级别的飞机的价格远远高于解放军。
此外，中国军事发展中还有一些现象需要避免。首先，为了发展军事，中国应该会把所有的国力投入到军事发展中，而这将导致人民生活水平的下降，最终导致分裂。其次，日本化和军事发展导致军事力量的扩张，最终会演变成军国主义，将发起对外侵略战争。

Andrew Goh lives in Singapore
What are your views on the USA slowly losing its military edge to China?
Over-exaggerated, alarmist nonsense.
China is unable to send soldiers halfway around the world on its own. The peacekeepers currently far away, they go as part of UN missions.
China’s logistics capability is nowhere near the US. It will take years, if not decades for the PLA to be able to wage wars on the same scale as the US military.

【回答】住在新加坡
你对美国慢慢丧失相对中国的军事优势有什么看法？
过分夸张，危言耸听的废话。
中国无法单独把士兵送到世界的另一端。维和部队目前在很远的地方，他们是作为联合国任务的一部分去的。
中国的后勤能力远不及美国。中国要想发动与美国军队同等规模的战争，至少需要几年甚至几十年的时间。

Sheri Fresonke studied undergraduate political science at the University of Central FL
The US lost its military edge between the end of World War I and the start of World War II. The famous quote from a movie from a Japanese commander that he feared he had awakened the sleeping dragon would still be true.
While the US outsources much work, sufficient science, technology, production resources still remain that would allow a build up.
However, the recent increase in the US debt is likely to settle in with US authorities the need to cut costs, watch for graft, streamline, clear out deadwood, and get the most for their dollars while painfully paying it all back.
Covid19 has shown the power of the war time act to facilitate getting needed resources fast.
Military edge is more than technology, training, and strategy and tactics, there's determination and much more to warfare.
Warfare is not a game; armed forces should pay attention.
There is also an assumption that US science and technology has dropped dead, nothing is further from the truth.

【回答】佛罗里达州中央大学 政治学本科
从第一次世界大战结束到第二次世界大战开始，美国失去了它的军事优势。在一部电影中，有一位日本指挥官害怕自己唤醒了沉睡的巨龙，这名言仍然是事实。
尽管美国外包了大量工作，但仍有充足的科学、技术和生产资源存在，可以用来进行建设。
然而，最近美国债务的增加很可能使美国当局意识到需要削减成本，留意贪污，精简机构，清除无用资产，最大限度地利用美元，同时痛苦地偿还所有债务。
新冠疫情已经显示了战时法案的力量，以促进快速获得所需的资源。
军事优势不仅仅是技术、训练、战略和战术，还包括决心和更多的东西。
战争不是游戏，军队应该注意。
还有一种假设认为，美国的科学和技术已经消亡，没有什么比这更离谱的了。

Thye Kim Meng Founder/ Darco Water Technologies Ltd
America just love wars, this is fact.
If America lose all the military edges, we can look forward to a world where peace prevails always.
Now the only way for America to never fight a war again is for America to commit a mistake in Taiwan Straits and the China bomb the navy out of existence with aircraft carrier killers and artillery rockets.America losing its military edges would just prompt China to trigger unification by force.

【回答】达科水处理技术有限公司 创始人
美国就是喜欢战争，这就是事实。
如果美国失去了所有的军事优势，我们可以期待一个永远和平的世界。
现在，让美国再也不打仗的唯一办法，就是在台湾海峡犯错，中国用航母杀手和火箭弹轰炸(美国)海军，让它灰飞烟灭。美国失去其军事优势只会促使中国通过武力达成统一目标。

Jason JW
It’s a good thing for the US to lose its military supremacy regardless to whom it’s weakening against. The US military is the single largest source of human suffering in the world we all live in today, and thus the biggest obstacle towards world peace we have since WWII. The global community needs more helping hands, not holding weapons.

【回答】
对美国来说，失去军事优势是件好事，不管对手是谁。美国军事力量是当今全球人类苦难的最大来源，也是自二战以来世界和平的最大障碍。国际社会需要更多的援助之手，而不是那些握着武器的手。

Jim Gwell lives in The United States of America
I think it is a non-issue. The US and China will not go to war, ever. The two nations have surpassed the level of normal warring nations and entered a realm of total annihilation. The power of these two nations is simply too great for a war to be fought. Any war will continue to be prevented by a continued accumulation of military power. Great powers can no longer go to war.
Instead, the two nations will undermine each other economically and diplomatically until one is no longer capable of sustaining such a powerful military and becomes a third rate power or collapses entirely. (Ex. USA/USSR Cold War)
Each nation needs only to make it too costly for the other to even consider military engagement to ensure no war will ever happen. So, if China equals, or even surpasses, the USA in military power it will have little impact on anything.
Take for example Russia. In truth, their military is no match for the US military in any theater. However, the USA have never directly gone to war with Russia. The reason is simple, while the US would likely win, the cost would be far too high. The same goes for the US and China, regardless of who happens to be in the lead.

【回答】住在美利坚合众国
我认为这不是问题。美国和中国永远不会开战。这两个国家已经超越了正常交战国的水平，进入了完全毁灭的境界。这两个国家的力量实在太强大了，不值得打一场战争。军事力量的不断积累将继续阻止任何战争。大国不能再发动战争了。
相反，这两个国家将在经济和外交上相互削弱，直到其中一个国家不再有能力维持如此强大的军事力量，成为三流大国，或彻底崩溃。(例如，美国/苏联冷战)
每个国家只需让对方考虑军事行动时要付出高昂代价，既可以确保永远不会发生战争。因此，如果中国的军事实力与美国相当，甚至超过美国，那么对任何事情都不会有什么影响。
以俄罗斯为例。事实上，他们的军队在任何战场上都不是美国军队的对手。然而，美国从未直接与俄罗斯开战。原因很简单，尽管美国有可能获胜，但代价太高。美国和中国的情况也是如此，无论谁处于领先地位。

Warren Fox
I don’t think the USA is loosing its military edge at all. And further the USA has the ability to access all the military research and development of all its allies. Eg. Germany seems to build the best 120 mm gun barrels. Norway builds a good air to air missile. Rolls Royce produces high quality jet engines. The r&d of the west is very well developed and interconnected. I am sure they are not sitting on their hands waiting for China to catch up.

【回答】
我不认为美国失去了它的军事优势。此外，美国有能力获得其所有盟国的所有军事研究和发展。例如，德国似乎制造了最好的120毫米炮管。挪威制造了一种很好的空对空导弹。劳斯莱斯生产高质量的喷气发动机。西方的研发十分发达，而且相互联系。我敢肯定，他们不会袖手旁观，坐等中国迎头赶上。

Barbara Wunderlich
Military wise, China still has a long way to go. The USA is not losing its game, at least it is not happening right now. However, the USA’s hegemony is certainly a threat to all of us, yet, most people do not realize it - well, the Europeans won’t do anything … the Asians and the Africans are not strong enough to do… this beast (the USA) is only “good” when others are willingly sending themselves to feed it.

【回答】
在军事方面，中国还有很长的路要走。美国并没有输掉这场比赛，至少现在还没有。然而，美国的霸权肯定是对我们所有人的威胁，然而，大多数人没有意识到这一点，欧洲人什么都不会做的... 亚洲人和非洲人不够强大，也不能做什么... 这头野兽(美国)只有在别人心甘情愿拿自己去喂它的时候，才是“好的”。

Robert Morton
My view is that the United States is nowhere near losing it's military edge. It still has better quality weaponry the only edge China has is manpower as the largest army in the world.

【回答】
我的观点是，美国离失去军事优势还差得很远。它仍然拥有质量更好的武器装备，中国唯一的优势是人力资源，是世界上最大的军队。

Chien-Sheng Tsai, former Coolie at Erie-Lackwanna Railway
I would not say that the USA is slowing losing its military edge to China but that the clear edge or gap that the USA has held over China in the past is rapidly being erased.
The USA still has superiority, and the US fields its forces worldwide while China is regional and concentrated around its homeland. The US depends upon its carrier battle groups to conduct war afar and bring war to others. China defends its homeland and trade routes. And with OBOR and the East Winds, sea blockade by the US would be less successful.

【回答】伊利-拉克万纳铁路前苦力
我不会说美国的军事优势正在逐渐输给中国，但是过去美国与中国之间的明显优势或差距正在迅速消失。
美国仍然有优势，美国在全球范围内部署兵力，而中国是地区性的，集中在自己的家园周围。美国依靠其航母战斗群进行远距离战争，并将战争带到其他国家。中国捍卫自己的国土和贸易路线。随着一带一路和东风的出现，美国的海上封锁将不会那么成功了。

George Hsia, studied Philosophy & Psychology
Slowly? The US does have more aircraft carriers. But for the PLA, they are just floating coffins. Nuclear warheads? Yes, the US has a lot more than China does. But what is the difference between destroying humanity 10 times and doing that once or twice?

【回答】学习哲学和心理学
慢慢？美国确实拥有更多的航空母舰。但对于解放军来说，这些只是漂浮的棺材。核弹头？没错，美国拥有的核弹头比中国多得多。但是毁灭人类十次和毁灭一两次有什么区别呢？

Kenneth Lm, Bachelor Degree from National University of Singapore
I don’t think so. USA military capability is not just for self defense, it is aggressive with capability to strike any one in the world. They have bases all over the world and allies to fight as proxy. China military is primarily for defense purposes, they have not established any useful base outside China to attack any one. The two countries are with different foreign policy. USA wants others to submit to them otherwise they will find way to topple the government. China is just the opposite, they don’t impose value on you and accept you with equal relations and respect. They can accommodate different political system and culture and they are willing to help for mutual benefit.
Hence the world will be peaceful if USA is on the decline in military power and focus more on domestical problems. USA cuts down on military spending is good for the American people, because more budget can be allocated for solving the problems facing the country domestically.

【回答】新加坡国立大学学士
我不这么认为。美国的军事能力不仅仅是为了自卫，它具有攻击世界上任何一个国家的能力。他们在世界各地都有基地，并且有盟友作为代理人参战。中国军队主要是为了防御目的，他们没有在中国以外建立可用的基地来攻击任何国家。这两个国家的外交政策不同。美国希望其他国家服从他们，否则他们将找到推翻其政府的方法。中国恰恰相反，他们不会把价值强加给你，而是以平等的关系和尊重接受你。他们能够适应不同的政治制度和文化，愿意互相帮助，互利互惠。
所以，如果美国军事实力下降，更多地关注国内问题，那么世界将会和平。美国削减军费开支对美国人民是有好处的，因为更多的预算可以用来解决国内面临的问题。

Roger Jiang, former Investment Banker
If Americans believe, almost religiously, Check and Balance is the key to prevent tyranny and is fundamentally a good thing, then Americans should welcome the Check and Balance that China provides.

【回答】前投资银行家
如果美国人（几乎是宗教信仰上的）相信，制衡是防止暴政的关键，而且这从根本上来说是件好事，那么美国人应该要欢迎中国提供的制衡。

Roger Moore lives in London
US army is still way ahead of China. But the goal of their armies are different. US is trying to put the entire world under control of her army. China just focus on winning battles at her doorstep. US can still easily win any war with China but only if not at China’s doorstep.

【回答】住在伦敦
美国军队仍然遥遥领先于中国。但是他们军队的目标是不同的。美国正试图把整个世界置于其军队的控制之下。而中国只是专注于在自家门口打赢战争。美国仍然可以轻易地赢得与中国的任何战争，但前提是，不是在中国家门口。

Chang Pak Seng former Retired Engineer,
The USA is the largest investors in military technology in the world.
There is no way the USA is losing its edge to China.

【回答】前退休工程师
美国是世界上最大的军事技术投资者。
美国绝不会输给中国的。

David L master Economics & History (2000)
industrial hegemony is the base of military/economic/financial/tech hegemony.
it is just a matter of time that military hegemony is taken over by the industry hegemony.
that was why UK lost its global military/economic/financial/tech hegemony after losting industry hegemony.

【回答】经济与历史硕士(2000年)
工业霸权是军事霸权/经济霸权/金融霸权/技术霸权的基础。
军事霸权被工业霸权所取代只是时间问题。
这就是英国在丧失工业霸权之后，失去全球军事霸权/经济霸权/金融霸权/科技霸权的原因。

Arturo Briones-Carcare lives in Spain
It is comforting to know there is someone who can challenge the bully of the playground.

【回答】住在西班牙
得知有人能够挑战操场上的恶霸，我感觉很欣慰。