扒车喵关于中国军事装备和训练的新闻和资讯频繁见诸印度媒体报道之上，印度网友对中国军力日新月异的发展感到惊异，不少印度网友对其大加质疑，有人在问答网站Quora上问道：中国的军事力量被高估了吗？这个问题引来各国网友的热议，美国和俄罗斯的专家专门撰文回答了他的问题，他们更是一针见血地指出：能让美国倾尽全力戒备的对手，有多大的实力你应该可以想象。
问题：中国的军事实力被高估了吗？
美国前海军顾问汤姆•沃特金斯的回答
The US government and military have always had impure motives for demonizing China’s military forces, and have compared them with the US military, or belittled or exaggerated them. In the past few decades, they have always enjoyed it. Why? Because they are jealous of China’s military power.
美国政府和军方总是动机不纯地对中国的军事力量进行妖魔化，并将其与美国军方加以比较，或贬低或夸大，在过去这几十年里，他们一直乐此不疲，为什么？因为他们忌惮中国的军事力量。
On the other hand, why do U.S. politicians never play up the Indian threat? Because your military and economic power cannot be compared with the United States, once India develops into a global force that threatens the hegemony of the United States, they will also treat them equally, regardless of the political system or ideology.
从另一方面讲，美国政客为什么从不渲染印度的威胁？因为你们的军事力量和经济力量根本无法与美国相提并论，一旦印度发展成为危及美国霸权的全球力量，他们也会一视同仁，这无关政治体制，意识形态。
The U.S. military and arms consortia publicize U.S. military strength around the world and create a spiritual and emotional threat atmosphere at home, thus ensuring strong military spending by Congress.
美国军方和军工财团在全球范围内宣扬美国的军事实力，同时在国内营造精神和情感上的威胁氛围，从而保证了国会强有力的军费投入。
In other words, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and other military enterprises have been lobbying parliamentarians and the media to maintain a sense of external threat to prove that the existing arms sales system of the United States is reasonable. At the same time, it also creates a sense of achievement for voters and allies.
也就是说，洛克希德·马丁、波音等军工企业一直在游说议员和媒体，保持一种外在的威胁感来证明美国现有的武器销售体系是合理的，同时也为选民和盟友创造一种成就感。
That is, the military expenditure of the United States far exceeds the current level of all our enemies, which is in the best interests of the United States and its allies, If we want to maintain our superiority over the enemy threat, we must maintain or even increase the corresponding military expenditure.
也就是说，美国的军费支出远远超越我们所有敌人的现有水平，这符合美国及其盟友的最大利益，如果我们要保持对敌人威胁的优势，就必须维持乃至于增加相应的军费支出。
Of course, if warmongers want to create market demand for their products, they must render threats, create tension, and even export war.
这很合理，战争贩子要为他们的产品创造市场需求，就要渲染威胁，制造紧张气氛，甚至输出战争。
Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in order to maintain its huge military presence and establish its influence in Western Europe and even the world, the United States must create an imaginary enemy out of thin air. Russia was a good choice, but the gap in strength was too large.
自苏联解体以来，美国为维持其庞大的军事存在，树立在西欧乃至世界范围内的影响力，必须要凭空创造一个假想敌，俄罗斯曾是一个不错的选择，却奈何实力差距太大。
Later, after the 9 / 11 incident, the United States turned to terrorism, which directly led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, As these threats diminish, the United States is targeting China.
后来911事件发生后，美国曾一度转向恐怖主义，直接导致了伊拉克和阿富汗战争，随着这些威胁的减少，也伴随着中国的崛起，美国正将矛头对准中国。
Although this view of “hypothetical enemy threat” helps to justify the huge military expenditure, to put it bluntly, the U.S. military and Congress just want to find a scapegoat, so as to blame others for their own problems, not only maintain a positive international image, but also find an excuse for their own misconduct, such as unnecessary charges such as abuse of force and friction.
尽管这种“假想敌威胁”的观点有助于说明巨额军费开支的正当性，但说白了，美国军方和国会就是想找一只替罪羊而已，这样好将自身的问题归咎于他人，既保持了积极的国际形象，又为自己的不当行为找到了借口，比如滥用武力、制造摩擦等莫须有的罪名。
Historically, every powerful country has a national “scapegoat”, which is either a unified country, a cultural group, or a religious and political group. Just like modern China to Japan and Cambodia to Vietnam, in order to solve the domestic crisis, they have lost wars one after another, not only to plunder resources and occupy land, but also to divert domestic attention.
从历史上看，每个强国都有一个国家级的“替罪羊”，其形式或是大一统的国家，或是文化种群，抑或是宗教政治团体，就像近代的中国之于日本，柬埔寨之于越南，为解决国内的危机，纷纷输出战争，除了为掠夺资源侵占土地外，更是为了转移国内的注意力。
Leaders of western countries are well aware that historical and cultural evidence also shows that China is not a threat to the United States, but a benign competitor, but this positioning of China is not in their best interests.
西方世界各国领导人很清楚，历史和文化证据也表明，中国对美国来说并非威胁，而是良性的竞争对手，但对中国的这种定位并不符合他们的最佳利益。
We must point out that historically, among all the major powers in the world, Chinese dynasties have been very aggressive, except for the Yuan Dynasty of the Mongols, which has gone beyond the concept of China. The background of China’s conflict is often when the border is threatened, like the friction between India and Vietnam.
我们必须指出，从历史上看，在世界上所有主要的大国中，中国历代王朝都是侵略性极小的，当然，蒙古人的元朝除外，元帝国已经超出中国这一概念。中国发起冲突的背景，往往是边界受到威胁的时候，如面对印度、越南的挑衅。
In contrast, the United States, Russia, Britain and most other European countries (Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, etc.) have repeatedly attacked and colonized other small countries, burning, killing and looting.
相比之下，美国、俄罗斯和英国以及大多数其他欧洲国家（西班牙、法国、德国、丹麦、瑞典、意大利等）都一再攻击和殖民其他小国，烧杀抢掠，无所不为。
In fact, Most countries in the world (even the United States itself) believe that the United States is the most aggressive country in history over the past 150 years. In the United States, our own internal propaganda and cultural prejudice tend to portray us as good people, defenders of world freedom and global police.
事实上，世界上大多数国家（甚至美国自己）都认为美国是过去150年来历史上最具侵略性的国家。在美国国内，我们自己的内部宣传和文化偏见倾向于将我们描绘成好人、世界自由捍卫者和全球警察。
This fully shows the effectiveness of our prejudice and propaganda. When we launch a war against a small country, Americans will fight each other Believe that this is a just act. We are sending democracy and freedom to them, but the fact is that we only have hegemony and interests in our eyes.
这充分说明了我们的偏见和宣传的有效性，当我们对一个小国发动战争的时候，美国人会相信这是正义的举动，我们在为他们送去民主和自由，可事实是我们眼中只有霸权和利益。
To a certain extent, the defensive and reactive military preparations of China and Russia provide an excuse for the brokers of U.S. military enterprises. They wrote an article in the magazine national interests to incite and urge Congress to continuously provide more funds for U.S. military spending. It is not so much a game of power and military as a conspiracy directed and played by consortia and politicians.
中国一定程度上防御性和反应性的军事准备为美国军工企业的掮客提供了借口，他们在《国家利益》杂志上撰文煽动，敦促国会不断地为美国的军费投入提供更多的资金，与其说这是一场权力和军事的游戏，不如说是财团和政客自导自演的一出阴谋诡计。
俄罗斯军事专家弗拉基米尔•安德洛夫的回答
The answers of many respondents to the question focus on military strength, weapons and equipment or past war performance. Most of these answers come from non Chinese authors, usually representing the views of the West. It is obvious that they all look at China with colored glasses.
问题下许多答主的回答都集中在军事实力、武器装备或过去的战争表现等方面，这些答案大多来自非中国作者，通常代表西方的观点，很明显他们都是戴着有色眼镜看待中国。
However, military insiders in the Pentagon have shown great respect for China’s army and navy. Of course, this respect is based on the combat quality and weapons and equipment of the Chinese army to a certain extent, but it is far more than that.
然而，在美国五角大楼的军事内部人员，对中国的陆军和海军表现出极大地尊重，当然，这种尊重一定程度上基于中国军队的战斗素质和武器装备，但远远不止于此。
West Point requires every qualified and strategic combat commander to be familiar with three books. They are the classic teaching materials of all military academies in the United States and the basis of war tactics for hundreds of years. They are Karl von Clausewitz’s theory of war, Sun Tzu’s art of war and Irene Rommel’s infantry attack.
西点军校要求每一位合格且富于战略的作战指挥官都必须熟读三本书，它们是美国所有军事院校的经典教材，也是数百年来战争战术的基础。他们分别是卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨的《战争论》、《孙子兵法》和艾琳·隆美尔的《步兵进攻》。
Clausewitz emphasizes political strategy and the use of power. Rommel focuses on combat tactics, while Sun Tzu’s art of war teaches tricks and combat psychology. Sun Tzu’s strategy and tactics are the most universal, and they are also a treasure dedicated by China to the world military history.
克劳塞维茨强调政治战略方面和权力的运用，隆美尔专注于战斗战术，《孙子兵法》则教授诡计和战斗心理。孙子的谋略和战术是最具普适性的，也是中国献给世界军事史的瑰宝。
In addition to the greatest tacticians and strategists in history, China also has the greatest military leaders in history. Even if you search Google roughly, you will find that several founding generals of China are among the best in the history of war. Their classic examples are praised by military experts.
除了产生了历史上最伟大的战术家和战略家，中国还拥有历史上最伟大的军事领袖，即使在谷歌上粗略搜索一下，也会发现中国几位开国将领，在战争史上都是数一数二的好手，他们的经典战例，最为军事专家们称道。
Nevertheless, throughout history, China has never been known as a conqueror or a military superpower. China has always been regarded as a cultural superpower: a country of invention, discovery, philosophy and literature.
尽管如此，纵观历史，中国从未以征服者或军事超级大国而闻名。中国一直被认为是一个文化上的超级大国：一个发明、发现、哲学和文学的国度。
The Chinese people have always attached importance to thought rather than militarism, and intelligence rather than force. In China, war has always been regarded as the initiator of suffering and hell on earth. The concept of peace is precious is deeply embedded in their national genes.
中国人历来重视思想而非穷兵黩武，重视智力而非武力。在中国，战争一直被视为苦难和人间地狱的始作俑者，以和为贵的理念深深地镶嵌在他们的民族基因里。
China has long been the only superpower in the east of Eurasia. It has never encountered the survival struggle under the lack of resources encountered by the Western Empire, which makes modern China very slow to respond to the arrival of change, so that it has gone through a century of humiliation under colonial plunder. Therefore, Britain and the United States and other western countries can evolve into military superpowers rather than cultural superpowers, Form a completely different view of war compared with China.
中国很早就成为欧亚大陆东部唯一的超级大国，从未遇到过西方帝国所遇到的那种资源匮乏下的生存斗争，这让近代的中国对变革的到来反应十分迟钝，以至于在殖民掠夺下走过屈辱百年，因此英美等西方世界国家可以演变成军事超级大国而不是文化超级大国，形成一种同中国相比完全迥异的战争观。
Modern China has changed this way of thinking. They believe that having weapons in hand is not the same as having weapons. Although China has weapons that frighten the heroes, it has been fulfilling its responsibility to maintain world peace.
现代中国转变了这种思维方式，他们认为手中有武器和有武器不用是两码事，中国虽然拥有令群雄胆寒的武器，却一直在履行维护世界和平的责任。
I also think that the western media do not know nothing about China’s military capability, but many people choose to ignore it.
我也认为西方媒体并不是对中国的军事能力一无所知，只是很多人选择忽视它。
The self-defense counterattack war against India is a clear example. The Indian authorities mistakenly evaluated the strength of themselves and their opponents, pointed their fingers on the border issue, were eager to try, deliberately provoked disputes, constantly tested the bottom line and tried to provoke China. After giving a lesson to the Indian army, China easily achieved its strategic goal. If they wanted to advance, they would retreat if they needed to retreat, and did not seek occupation, The purpose is to fight until the other party is unable to resist.
对印自卫反击战就是一个鲜明的例子，印度当局错误评估自己和对手的实力，在边界问题上指手划脚，跃跃欲试，蓄意挑起争端，不断试探底线，试图激怒中国，在教训印度军队一顿后，中国轻而易举的达到了自己的战略目的，他们想进则进，需退则退，不求占领，打到对方无力反抗就是目的。
This is the difference between Western and Eastern thinking. Different from the United States and its hegemonic policy, China often considers a series of consequences of its actions. China has a word called keeping low profile, but it must not be regarded as China’s weakness and compromise. Napoleon may have read grandson’s classic works. He commented: “China is a sleeping lion. Once awakened, it will shock the world”.
这就是西方和东方思维的不同之处，与美国及其霸权政策不同，中国往往会考虑所采取行动的一系列后果，中国有个词语叫韬光养晦，但切莫将其视为中国的软弱与妥协。拿破仑可能读过孙子的经典著作，他评论道：“中国是一只沉睡的狮子，一旦觉醒将会震惊世界”。
