英國(guó)還能負(fù)擔(dān)得起自我防衛(wèi)的費(fèi)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(guò)去二十年來(lái)，英國(guó)陸軍一直在走下坡路。如今，面對(duì)俄羅斯帶來(lái)的威脅以及可能失去美國(guó)支持的局面，北約成員國(guó)如英國(guó)提升國(guó)防開(kāi)支的緊迫性愈發(fā)明顯。然而，在英國(guó)，這一必要性卻與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)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(guó)：我們?cè)?jīng)靠紅衣軍和火槍統(tǒng)治過(guò)半個(gè)世界，現(xiàn)在卻在爭(zhēng)論買(mǎi)不買(mǎi)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(guó)的全球影響力靠的不是火槍而是海軍，可惜如今兩樣都沒(méi)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(shuō)實(shí)話，英國(guó)在以往打仗的時(shí)候財(cái)政狀況也從未算好。有些戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)讓英國(guó)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(duì)英國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)，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(huì)負(fù)責(zé)陸基防空系統(tǒng)。我想大多數(shù)英國(guó)人并不在乎我們有沒(méi)有陸軍再去打一場(chǎng)伊拉克或阿富汗那樣的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。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(lái)英國(guó)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(duì)。
 
@Music5362
All for helping other countries but only after our own security needs are satisfied.
 
我支持幫助其他國(guó)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(duì)來(lái)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(méi)看視頻，就已經(jīng)知道答案了：不，英國(guó)根本負(fù)擔(dān)不起自我防衛(wèi)的開(kāi)銷(xiāo)。我們連從居民垃圾桶里收垃圾的錢(qián)都拿不出來(lái)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(qián)，那他們是負(fù)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(guó)的國(guó)防開(kāi)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(lái)要求歐洲人。
 
@MaxeMooseyBoo
Dude we literally just approved the biggest budget ever for spending as the US
 
兄弟，美國(guó)剛剛批準(zhǔn)了史上最大一筆的國(guó)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(duì)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(jué)得美國(guó)根本沒(méi)有好好掏錢(qián)。
 
@CosyCelsior
What's the point? The Americans can't build ships anymore, cracks in multiple hulls..
 
有什么好爭(zhēng)的？美國(guó)現(xiàn)在連造船都不會(huì)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(shuō)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(guó)防支出提高到了GDP的更高比例。其次，用GDP衡量美國(guó)的軍費(fèi)本來(lái)就不太準(zhǔn)，因?yàn)槲覀兊慕?jīng)濟(jì)體量太大了，而且圖表里還包括了經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退期，誤差很大。即使考慮通脹，我們的軍費(fèi)還是在漲。
而我最喜歡用來(lái)比較歷史國(guó)防支出的是人均支出模型，這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)顯示在過(guò)去的十年或四十年里（取決于你是否納入經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退期），軍費(fèi)的人均支出是略有上升的。也就是說(shuō)我作為納稅人的錢(qián)比過(guò)去更多地流進(jìn)了軍隊(duì)。
 
@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(guó)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(guò)增產(chǎn)電力來(lái)降低生活成本，這樣原本用于能源的那部分錢(qián)才能被用在其他能促進(jìn)GDP增長(zhǎng)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(guó)人寧愿反抗國(guó)家，也不愿為它而戰(zhàn)，我一點(diǎn)都不會(huì)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(lài)美國(guó)了。美國(guó)是唯一一個(gè)真正重要的國(guó)家，其余的國(guó)家規(guī)模都太小，根本沒(méi)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(shuō)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(guó)不希望看到的樣子……而過(guò)去幾十年里，美國(guó)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(guó)、法國(guó)和德國(guó)絕對(duì)不算無(wú)足輕重。英國(guó)和法國(guó)都是有核國(guó)家，這三國(guó)加起來(lái)也占據(jù)了全球GDP的大部分。他們軍力相對(duì)較小的唯一原因是因?yàn)樗麄兛梢砸蕾?lài)美國(guó)，把原本該花在國(guó)防上的錢(qián)用于社會(huì)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(jué)得很好笑，美國(guó)人以為其他國(guó)家的軍隊(duì)能被允許像美國(guó)一樣擴(kuò)張，但就算是盟友英國(guó)也不行。
這可不是歐盟懶的問(wèn)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?yàn)槟潜緛?lái)就是協(xié)定，只有法國(guó)拒絕了，這一切早就被設(shè)計(jì)好了。盡管美國(guó)人幾十年來(lái)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(guó)的實(shí)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(shí)。你看現(xiàn)在美國(guó)都把空中加油機(jī)隊(duì)轉(zhuǎn)移到德國(guó)去了。德國(guó)是主要的運(yùn)輸樞紐，也是北約在歐洲的后勤中心，還是美國(guó)最大的海外醫(yī)院的所在地。無(wú)人機(jī)信號(hào)傳輸也依賴(lài)這里，沒(méi)有它中東戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)都打不了。德國(guó)現(xiàn)在生產(chǎn)的155毫米炮彈和其他彈藥比美國(guó)還多，炮管和履帶也都在生產(chǎn)——這個(gè)月又下了訂單，用于美軍的現(xiàn)代化升級(jí)。
 
@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(guó)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(jiǎn)化國(guó)防采購(gòu)流程和研發(fā)投資結(jié)構(gòu)。資金其實(shí)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(huì)像二戰(zhàn)那樣保衛(wèi)國(guó)家，我們不想卷入海外戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
國(guó)防只要專(zhuān)注于這一點(diǎn)，還有保護(hù)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(gè)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(chǎng)。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(guó)得把印度、巴基斯坦、新加坡和香港（特區(qū)）都收回來(lái)，這樣才能讓大英帝國(guó)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(wàn)人的部隊(duì)聽(tīng)起來(lái)挺響亮的，但人并不是主要的開(kāi)銷(xiāo)，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(qián)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(wàn)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(shuō)得不完全對(duì)。其實(shí)是1790億英鎊，其余的包括養(yǎng)老金——嚴(yán)格來(lái)說(shuō)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(qián)，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(shuō)在引入了幾百萬(wàn)南亞人之后，英國(guó)現(xiàn)在比幾十年前那個(gè)同質(zhì)化社會(huì)還弱？真是“誰(shuí)能想到”??？
 
@Narweeboy
Yeah! We Indians had the same feeling when your lot came over to India 300 years ago
 
沒(méi)錯(cuò)！你們?nèi)倌昵皝?lái)印度的時(shí)候，我們印度人也有同樣的感覺(jué)。
 
@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(wàn)的數(shù)字并不包括廓爾喀和皇家海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊(duì)，加上他們的話大約還有一萬(wàn)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(kāi)始還真看成了“英國(guó)能否保衛(wèi)以色列”，說(shuō)實(shí)話——對(duì)英國(guó)的精英們來(lái)說(shuō)，這可能確實(shí)比保衛(wèi)自己國(guó)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(qián)的問(wèn)題，而是你是否有道德和倫理地去支持那樣一個(gè)政權(quán)。大多數(shù)英國(guó)人都表示“絕不可能”，但哈，我們生活在一個(gè)“民主國(guó)家”，政客們最懂事，他們可以無(wú)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(fù)擔(dān)得起的，只是需要重新調(diào)整開(kāi)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(cái)政規(guī)則，把事兒弄得越來(lái)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(qián)救銀行、還讓他們不用承擔(dān)任何后果，那肯定也能負(fù)擔(dān)得起國(guó)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(guó)應(yīng)該從精神上摘掉“Great Britain”中的“Great”，因?yàn)椤皞ゴ蟆碧F了，我們負(fù)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(duì)還不到五萬(wàn)人，大多數(shù)還是兼職的。整個(gè)英聯(lián)邦就是個(gè)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(shí)大多數(shù)是全職的。在這4.5萬(wàn)的軍隊(duì)里，大概有2.8萬(wàn)是全職軍人，1.5萬(wàn)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?？你們知道那有多貴嗎？那對(duì)GDP來(lái)說(shuō)是多大的機(jī)會(huì)成本？英國(guó)和澳大利亞現(xiàn)在是、將來(lái)也應(yīng)該是海權(quán)國(guó)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(guó)還活在1900年代的大英帝國(guó)的夢(mèng)里，但帝國(guó)早死了?，F(xiàn)在整個(gè)軍隊(duì)都能塞進(jìn)溫布利球場(chǎng)，還能空出不少座位。
 
@Melior_Traiano
The British Army has always been small in peace time.
 
和平時(shí)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(diǎn)資料，英國(guó)軍隊(duì)的總?cè)藬?shù)剛剛超過(guò)十萬(wàn)。真是個(gè)驚人的數(shù)字——一個(gè)國(guó)家的全部軍人竟然能擠進(jìn)一個(gè)球場(chǎng)。
 
@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(qiáng)大的英國(guó)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(diǎn)沒(méi)人提到——英國(guó)軍隊(duì)如今瘋狂地強(qiáng)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(jí)，而更傾向于招募少數(shù)族裔。我說(shuō)這些完全和種族無(wú)關(guān)，只是基于常識(shí)。一個(gè)出生背景和信仰根植于其他國(guó)家的人，有多大可能心甘情愿地為這個(gè)國(guó)家戰(zhàn)斗？而一個(gè)來(lái)自貧困社區(qū)、別無(wú)出路、迫切需要機(jī)會(huì)的工人階級(jí)小伙子，有多大可能愿意為國(guó)家?jiàn)^斗？這只是常識(shí)問(wèn)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(shuō)，你被誤導(dǎo)了。雖然確實(shí)有些時(shí)候英軍在英聯(lián)邦國(guó)家中加大了招募比例，但這和多元、公平、包容政策無(wú)關(guān)。那反映的是我們社會(huì)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(guó)家面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，不只是英國(guó)，也絕不是在偏袒哪個(gè)群體。
我本人在軍中服役超過(guò)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(shuō)法并不屬實(shí)。你的朋友當(dāng)然有權(quán)表達(dá)自己的觀點(diǎn)，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(méi)有機(jī)會(huì)接觸軍隊(duì)完整的招募機(jī)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(wú)數(shù)來(lái)自不同背景和信仰的人——印度人、錫克人、斐濟(jì)人、尼泊爾人等等——都自愿并英勇地為我們的國(guó)家作戰(zhàn)，這種服務(wù)精神早已超越國(guó)籍和信仰。如果你仍然不信，那就去了解一下來(lái)自格林納達(dá)的Johnson Beharry或來(lái)自尼泊爾的Dipprasad Pun，他們都獲得了國(guó)家最高榮譽(yù)之一。再往下看，你會(huì)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。