美国博主:将摧毁中国的疯狂美国新型导弹!

234 0
卡卡西里 2024-6-29 17:00:15 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
美国拥有令人难以置信的空军力量,但与中国和俄罗斯相比又如何呢?看看今天这段令人惊叹的视频,它揭示了 6 种新型导弹,这些导弹将使美国在与主要军事对手发生冲突时占据上风!

美国博主:将摧毁中国的疯狂美国新型导弹!

美国博主:将摧毁中国的疯狂美国新型导弹!

GizzyDillespee
1天前
It's important to have missiles that "can" destroy China. That will help motivate China not to attack US interests. I think it's unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational to say that they "will" destroy China. Those kinds of missiles are built to last, because you don't want to have to replace them in 10 years. The reason that's a concern is because you don't anticipate using them. You plan for contingencies, but you don't expect those scenarios to play out, despite preparing for them.

拥有 "能够"摧毁中国的导弹非常重要。这将有助于促使中国不要攻击美国的利益。我认为,说它们 "将"摧毁中国是不必要的咄咄逼人和对抗。这类导弹经久耐用,因为你不想在十年内就得更换它们。这之所以令人担忧,是因为你预计不会使用它们。你计划了应急方案,但尽管做好了准备,你并不指望这些方案会出现。


Headlines like this are like your team donkey talking smack about the other team in public before a big game. It's going to spur on increased Chinese missile production, to make a missile that will destroy America. And then America will have to make a missile that's even worse. The missile manufacturers must LOVE these headlines. "Can destroy". Do you really have the intent to destroy China? If not, then don't say that you do, in the headlines.

像这样的标题就像是你的球队在一场重要比赛前当众说对方坏话。这将刺激中国增加导弹生产,制造一种可以摧毁美国的导弹。然后美国将不得不制造一种更糟糕的导弹。导弹制造商肯定喜欢这些头条新闻。“可以摧毁”。你真的想摧毁中国吗?如果没有,那就不要在标题上说你有。


Bigbadjohn
1天前
A youtube video would be a dumb reason to start a war, but there have been wars fought over dumb reasons before. These are just the weapons we know of. It is possible that a WW3 can lead to the development of more dangerous weapons, similar to the reason for the development of nuclear weapons.

Youtube 上的一段视频是发动战争的一个愚蠢理由,但以前也有过因为愚蠢理由而发动的战争。这些只是我们已知的武器。第三次世界大战有可能导致更危险武器的发展,这与核武器发展的原因类似。


Infographics show has videos about some of them. The scariest one I've seen is a nuke that is powered by a small nuclear reactor. That means the missile would be able to fly around for a month or more without losing power. It would radiate the land it flies over before striking a strategic target.

Infographics show 有关于其中一些武器的视频。我见过的最可怕的是一种由小型核反应堆驱动的核弹。这意味着导弹可以飞行一个月或更长时间而不会失去动力。在击中战略目标之前,它将辐射飞过的土地。


TheGreatMarathaArmy
1天前
Only Pakistan believes in Chinese missile Range claims

只有巴基斯坦相信中国导弹射程的说法!


Tenormdness
1天前
The US has a BVR a2a missile that you haven’t seen yet. The USAF doesn’t play around and each new war its “wow I didn’t know American had that”.

美国有一种你还没见过的 BVR a2a 导弹。美国空军可不是闹着玩的,每打一场新战争,他们都会说 "哇,我不知道美国还有这个"。


Seamusoreilly
1天前
Don’t forget Russia’s new super-nuclear-tsunami torpedo which Medvedev said could submerge the entirety of Britain.

别忘了俄罗斯的新型超级核海啸鱼雷,梅德韦杰夫说它可以淹没整个英国。


Muleyman
1天前
If Russia and China claim 200km then the missile will actually only go less than half that.

如果俄罗斯和中国声称导弹的射程为 200 公里,那么实际上导弹的射程只有不到 200 公里的一半。


Liberatio
1天前
I am not going to lie. I love technology and how us humans go further and beyond on innovation. (It's just a shame that it is often made for beating the snout of each other)

我不想说谎。我喜欢科技,也喜欢我们人类在创新上走得更远。(只是遗憾的是,这些技术往往是用来互相 "打嘴巴"的)


Julianviefers
1天前
Sure longer range is good doesn't mean u can engage that distance.You need to guide to terminal phase otherwise no range in the world will help you

射程远当然好,但并不意味着你能在那么远的距离上交战。您需要引导到终端阶段,否则世界上任何射程都帮不了您。


Jackhenry
1天前
being able to shoot a missile from 400km greatly reduces the chances it hits the target. regardless of what ever tech they are using

能够从400公里发射导弹大大降低了它击中目标的机会。不管他们用的是什么技术!


Isaacbrown
1天前
I don't understand how people are still so stuck on that oil thing nothing was oil motivated considering we're almost entirely self sufficient on oil, and the bit that we're not we get from Canada. We EXPORT oil. Oil hasn't been a problem for us like that since the 70s, find some other conspiracy theory.

我不明白人们怎么还对石油问题如此执着,考虑到我们的石油几乎完全自给自足,没有自给自足的那部分石油是从加拿大获得的,所以没有什么是石油驱动的。我们出口石油。自上世纪 70 年代以来,石油就没有给我们带来过这样的问题,那就去找其他的阴谋论吧。


Jackmason
1天前
It is a matter of logistics.Our oil is mostly in Alaska and Texas.Canada also has oil in their west.None of that is near the US east coast. So we export our oil to Asia and rely on oil from Arabia.

这是一个物流问题,我们的石油主要在阿拉斯加和得克萨斯州,加拿大西部也有石油,这些地方都不靠近美国东海岸。因此,我们将石油出口到亚洲,并依赖来自阿拉伯的石油。


Whatsamatou
11小时前
Why need missiles, why everyone can't get along

为什么需要导弹,为什么大家不能和睦相处!


AndreVan
1天前
You left out Americas new Air to Air Mutant Missile. Our first Transformer Weaopon.

你漏掉了美国的新型空对空变种导弹,我们的第一个变形武器。


Gamersince
1天前
Did you Know The word "Hypersonic missiles" is misleasing? It should be "Hypersonic Maneuvering Missiles".

您知道吗?"高超音速导弹"这个词有误导性。应该是 "高超音速机动导弹"。


Reverence
1天前
Micro missiles with extreme speed an control could be packed in droves and sent in waves. It doesn't take much boom to take out a jet if you can hit it. Could be the future of air warfare. Also swarms of boom boom drones basically solves much ground water and limited air warfare. It would be cheaper and more effective.

微型导弹具有极高的速度和控制能力,可以成群结队、一波一波地发射。只要能击中喷气式飞机,就不需要太多的轰鸣声就能摧毁它。这可能是空战的未来。此外,成群的轰鸣无人机基本上可以解决大部分地面水战和有限的空战。成本更低,效果更好。


ActJack
1天前
American tech is really really coooool but i think that the american short range missles should have a minimum short distance of at least 7000 kilometers

美国的技术真的很酷,但我认为美国的短程导弹应该至少有7000公里的短距离。


Greggweber
1天前
Is it too expensive to use, replace, or spend on which would decrease resources to other things, or just bankrupt us?

使用、更换或花费太昂贵,会减少用于其他事情的资源,还是会让我们破产?


Coodudeman
1小时前(修改过)
No one seems to realize how unbelievably eff’d we as everyday Americans would be without china.

似乎没有人意识到,如果没有中国,我们这些普通美国人会变得多么糟糕。


Chinabonjing
11小时前
so no one's gonna talk about China and Philippines literally going to war...no?

所以没人会谈论中国和菲律宾真的会开战......不是吗?


Themikecranston
1天前
There are countries that have put men on the moon,

有些国家已经把人送上了月球!


Jaythomas
1天前
Would any of those countries include USA/NASA as they admit they DONT have the technology to go-to the moon

这些国家会包括美国/NASA吗,因为他们承认自己没有登月技术!


NM-qdtm
1天前
Yeah, not anymore. Going to the moon was a one time thing as a d*ck measuring contest. The amount spent on it was insane and it produced nothing of real value. All of that know-how to get there was lost because the program was shut down and no work was continued until more recently.

是的,不再是了。登月只是一次 "丈二和尚摸不着头脑"的比赛。为此耗费的资金令人咋舌,却没有产生任何实际价值。所有登月的技术诀窍都丢失了,因为项目被关闭了,直到最近才继续开展工作。


It would be like if humans knew how to build a house and then after they built their first house they said it wasn't worth it and went 50 years without building another house. All the people that did the work to design and construct the first house are either dead or no longer available to work on such a project and things would have changed so much anyways that rebuilding it in the old manner wouldn't be practical any longer.

这就好比人类知道如何建造房子,但在建造了第一座房子后,他们又说不值得,于是 50 年都没有再建一座房子。所有参与设计和建造第一座房子的人要么已经死了,要么已经无法再参与这样的项目,而且事情已经发生了很大的变化,按照以前的方式重建房子已经不现实了。


Pike100
1天前
What?!? America has had that technology since 1969!Does that mean that we could land a person on the moon next year? No.Does that mean that we would use all of that exact same technology again for the same task? No.However, insinuating that America can't land people on the moon again is disingenuous. We already did that - 55 years ago!

什么?美国早在 1969 年就拥有了这项技术!这是否意味着我们明年就能让人登上月球?不是。这是否意味着我们会在同样的任务中再次使用那些完全相同的技术?不会。然而,影射美国不能再次让人类登陆月球是不诚实的。55 年前,我们已经做到了!


Edljnehan
1天前
by now you have given it's lower version prototype to china then again invest billions on new wepons

到目前为止,你已经把它的低版本原型给了中国,然后又在新武器上投资了数十亿美元。


Juanmanue
1天前
In a nuclear war scenario. China would always win against US. Why? They have a higher percentage of rural population (who will survive the strikes) and will rebuild the country.

在核战争的情况下,中国总是能战胜美国。为什么?他们的农村人口比例更高(他们能在打击中幸存下来),而且会重建国家。


Snegglederlickton
1天前
For once we actually followed a treaty, when China and Russia were supposed to but didn't, so we're behind on hyper-sonic missiles.

这一次,我们真的遵守了条约,而中国和俄罗斯本应遵守,但却没有,所以我们在超音速导弹方面落后了。


Blaergh
1天前(修改过)
I don't know what treaty you're referencing. There were 2 major ones between the US and the USSR - ABMT and INFT - and one between the US and Russia - START II. Reagan undercut ABMT in 1983 with his Strategic Defense Initiative and GW Bush left it completely in 2002. It's arguable that Putin violating INFT by developing his "super weapons" (which include his air-launched hypersonic missile Kinzhal) was in direct response to that. I can't find any US-China treaties that would cover missiles, yet that doesn't mean that there aren't any.

我不知道您指的是什么条约。美国和苏联之间有两个主要条约--ABMT(反弹道导弹条约) 和 INFT(中导条约),美国和俄罗斯之间有一个条约--START II(第二阶段削减战略武器条约)。里根在 1983 年提出的 "战略防御倡议"削弱了 ABMT 条约,而布什总统则在 2002 年彻底放弃了该条约。可以说,普京开发 "超级武器"(包括空射高超音速导弹 "匕首"),从而违反了 INFT,正是对 INFT 的直接回应。我找不到任何涵盖导弹的中美条约,但这并不意味着没有。


I'm by no means condoning Putin's creation of "super weapons" nor am I implying that the US breaks rules anywhere close to how often Russia and China do. I am, however, pointing out that the US does have a tendancy to shoot itself in the foot, especially at the hands of Republicans - take Trump's destruction of the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018 and Iran's increased military activities against Saudi Arabia and Israel, two key US allies, since.

我绝不是在纵容普京制造 "超级武器",也不是在暗示美国违反规则的频率与俄罗斯和中国不相上下。不过,我想指出的是,美国确实有自取灭亡的倾向,尤其是在共和党人的手中--就拿特朗普在2018年破坏《伊朗核协议》以及伊朗此后针对沙特阿拉伯和以色列这两个美国重要盟友加强军事活动来说吧。


Jamiecoyne
1天前
US is a little behind when it comes to supersonic. All weapons in China are a fraction of the cost in America. They would be able to produce more at faster rate and lower cost. Maybe not as technologically advanced as America but rather have 1000’s vs a few

说到超音速,美国有点落后。中国所有武器的成本只是美国的一小部分。他们能够以更快的速度和更低的成本生产更多的武器。也许在技术上不如美国先进,但中国有 1000 艘比几艘要好。


Butternut
1天前
.you dont have all the info....We shall see about the truth of this in the next decade I’m sure

你没有所有的信息....我敢肯定,我们将在未来十年内看到真相。


Cotahack
13小时前
russia's missile has laser and can time travel.putin said so.china's missile is amazing......but does melt in the sun. tofu ?

俄罗斯的导弹有激光,可以进行时间旅行。普京是这么说的。中国的导弹是惊人的......却在阳光下融化。豆腐吗?


Hwirtwirt
1天前
The US Airforce jets would be at a huge disadvantage against China and Russia? That's complete BS! US planes have a huge advantage.

美国空军战机在与中国和俄罗斯的对抗中会处于非常不利的地位?这完全是胡说八道!美国飞机拥有巨大优势。


Frankrizzo
1天前(修改过)
US planes have farther targeting and better stealth. What’s the disadvantage?

美军飞机的瞄准距离更远,隐身性能更好,缺点是什么?


Ryabow
1天前
He is talking about the range of our current air-to-air missiles compared to the ranges of the ones being used by Russia and China. We definitely have the better planes, but it's possible that our primary adversaries have the better missiles for right now.

他说的是我们目前空对空导弹的射程与俄罗斯和中国使用的导弹射程的比较。我们肯定拥有更好的飞机,但目前我们的主要对手可能拥有更好的导弹。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|网站地图|渝公网安备 50019002502186号|音飞网 ( 渝ICP备2022004218号-1 )

GMT+8, 2024-7-14 16:00 , Processed in 0.144859 second(s), 42 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

Copyright © 2001-2023, Tencent Cloud.