Name: 英國有能力自衛嗎？ (Can the UK Afford to Defend Itself?)
Uploaded: 2025-06-23T03:01:27.000Z
Duration: 11 min 33 s

I can announce this government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.

我可以宣佈，本屆政府將開始自冷戰結束以來最大規模的國防開支持續增長。

情態副詞

Britain is back on a war footing, but apparently in threadbare shoes.

英國又回到了戰爭狀態，但顯然穿的是破鞋。

The combat power that the British army can bring to bear is much, much less than it has been able to.

英軍所能發揮的戰鬥力要比它一直以來所能發揮的戰鬥力少得多，少得多。

It's now at its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, losing more people than it's recruiting.

它現在的規模是拿破崙時代以來最小的，流失的人數比招募的人數還多。

Reversing course would require a level of sustained investment that eclipses the timeline of the current Prime Minister's administration.

要想扭轉局面，就必須進行持續的投資，而這一投資水準將超越現任總理政府的時間表。

Meanwhile, the deadliest conflict in Europe since 1945 is already here.

與此同時，1945 年以來歐洲最致命的衝突已經來臨。

The threat of Russian aggression is perceived to be only increasing and patience between NATO members is wearing thin.

人們認為俄羅斯的侵略威脅與日俱增，而北約成員國之間的耐心也在消磨殆盡。

Our allies have taken advantage of us more so than our enemies.

我們的盟友比我們的敵人更會利用我們。

I said if you're not going to pay your bills, we're not going to defend you.

我說，如果你不付賬單，我們就不為你辯護。

The issue is that while the threat is immediate, the fiscal cupboard is bare and there's no time for saving.

問題是，雖然威脅迫在眉睫，但財政櫥櫃卻空空如也，沒有時間節省。

And that's going to require some very difficult trade-offs for the government.

這就需要政府做出一些艱難的權衡。

Voters say that they want more security and they're in favour of greater defence spending.

選民們說，他們想要更多的安全，他們贊成增加國防開支。

They don't necessarily want to pay for it.

他們不一定願意為此付出代價。

So now one of the most critical jobs for the UK government is to find a solution, and quickly.

是以，現在英國政府最關鍵的工作之一就是儘快找到解決方案。

Problem is, nobody knows if one even exists.

問題是，沒人知道它是否存在。

Security experts now believe Britain is incapable of defending itself against a ballistic missile attack.

安全專家現在認為，英國沒有能力抵禦彈道導彈的襲擊。

There is this significant gap between Britain's rhetoric and reputation and its actual military capabilities.

英國的言論和聲譽與其實際軍事能力之間存在巨大差距。

The reputation of the UK armed forces has historically been very high.

英國武裝部隊的聲譽歷來很高。

However, that reputation has been steadily declining over probably the last two decades.

然而，大概在過去二十年裡，這種聲譽一直在穩步下降。

In Iraq, especially in 2009, the US had to come south and actually support the Iraqi forces and effectively bail out UK troops.

在伊拉克，尤其是 2009 年，美國不得不南下實際支持伊拉克軍隊，並有效地解救了英國軍隊。

There were a number of shortfalls within UK military, both in the maritime and land domains.

英國軍隊在海上和陸地領域都存在一些不足。

One of the significant issues at the moment is personnel numbers.

目前的一個重要問題是人員數量。

The Labour government did, when it last left office in 2010, leave the army with around 100,000 personnel.

工黨政府在 2010 年卸任時，確實為軍隊留下了約 10 萬人。

But that was already a decline, and a government strategic defence and security review in 2010 and 2011 concluded further cuts were warranted.

但這一數字已經有所下降，政府在 2010 年和 2011 年進行的國防和安全戰略審查得出結論，需要進一步削減經費。

The current target strength is 72,500, but if you actually take it on available strength, it's around 55,000.

目前的目標兵力是 72500 人，但如果按現有兵力計算，實際兵力約為 55000 人。

But actually, retention is the most important because you're losing trained personnel, potentially with operational experience.

但實際上，留住人才才是最重要的，因為你會失去訓練有素的人員，可能是有業務經驗的人員。

Poor housing stock makes soldiers leave early, and that is a key risk for the government.

糟糕的住房存量使阿兵哥提前離開，這是政府面臨的主要風險。

A key point of the government's latest strategic defence review, published in June, set out plans for Britain to return to warfighting competitiveness.

英國政府於今年 6 月發佈了最新的國防戰略審查報告，其中的一個要點是提出了英國恢復作戰競爭力的計劃。

That includes addressing low ammunition reserves and sluggish, outdated procurement cycles.

這包括解決彈藥儲備不足和採購週期緩慢、過時的問題。

The UK has very high-end equipment in terms of anti-submarine warfare capabilities, long-range strike capabilities, as examples.

例如，英國在反潛戰能力、遠程打擊能力等方面擁有非常高端的裝備。

The issue is there's just not enough of them.

If you don't have enough of these systems, you can't effectively train on them.

如果沒有足夠的這些系統，就無法進行有效的訓練。

Dwindling numbers of troops, tanks and training are the result of underinvestment by successive Conservative governments.

由於歷屆保守黨政府投資不足，部隊、坦克和訓練的數量不斷減少。

But Britain is a member of the G7 and one of the richest countries in the world.

但英國是七國集團成員，也是世界上最富有的國家之一。

Since 1955, there's been a correlation between the UK's ballooning house and welfare bill and cuts to defence spending.

自 1955 年以來，英國不斷膨脹的房屋和福利支出與國防開支的削減之間一直存在著關聯。

And some economists have called that the peace dividend, where reductions in the amount spent on defence has been recycled into other areas, possibly lower taxes, possibly higher spending on other areas, one of which is health.

一些經濟學家將此稱為和平紅利，即減少的國防開支被轉用於其他領域，可能是降低稅收，也可能是增加其他領域的開支，其中之一就是醫療衛生。

As a share of GDP over the last seven decades, the UK's military expenditure has decreased, while spending on healthcare has gone the other direction.

在過去 70 年裡，英國軍費開支佔國內生產總值的比例有所下降，而醫療保健開支卻反其道而行之。

This is that so-called peace dividend in action.

這就是所謂的和平紅利在發揮作用。

In the 50s, you had defence spending at 7.5% of GDP and health spending at around 3% of GDP.

50 年代，國防開支佔 GDP 的 7.5%，醫療開支佔 GDP 的 3%左右。

You can almost flip those numbers around now.

現在你幾乎可以把這些數字翻過來了。

Those percentages now pose as much of a problem for Britain as they do a priority for NATO and for the superpower that accounts for two-thirds of the Alliance's defence spending.

這些百分比現在對英國來說既是一個問題，也是北約和這個佔北約三分之二國防開支的超級大國的優先事項。

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was assembled in 1949 to protect Western Europe during the Cold War.

北大西洋公約組織成立於 1949 年，目的是在冷戰期間保護西歐。

Member nations pledged to uphold a collective defence, meaning an attack on one is essentially an attack on all, and thus a greater risk to potential aggressors.

成員國承諾堅持集體防禦，這意味著對一個國家的攻擊實質上就是對所有國家的攻擊，是以對潛在的侵略者來說風險更大。

Twelve initial members grew to 32 today, each agreeing to defence expenditure equal to a percentage of GDP.

最初的 12 個成員發展到今天的 32 個，每個成員都同意國防開支佔國內生產總值的一定比例。

The last NATO defence industrial pledge was agreed at the Wales Summit in 2014, which was to spend 2% by 2024, which just over two-thirds of Allies do now.

上一次北約國防工業承諾是在 2014 年的威爾士峰會上達成的，即到 2024 年支出 2%，而現在只有三分之二多的盟國做到了這一點。

Poland spends 4%, a little over 4% of GDP, and the US as well spends 3.4% of GDP on defence.

波蘭的國防開支為 4%，略高於國內生產總值的 4%，美國的國防開支也佔國內生產總值的 3.4%。

Like Britain, nearly all countries spend less than they once did, as Cold War brinkmanship gave way to burger chains across former Soviet heartlands.

與英國一樣，幾乎所有國家的支出都比以前減少了，因為冷戰時期的邊緣政策讓位於遍佈前蘇聯心臟地帶的漢堡連鎖店。

The world is just a far more dangerous place.

And it's now widely accepted that no one pays enough for defence, and that NATO relies overwhelmingly on the US for leadership, coordination, muscle and money. 2% is a start, as President Trump has said, but it's not enough.

現在人們普遍認為，沒有人支付足夠的國防費用，北約的上司、協調、力量和資金絕大部分依賴於美國。正如特朗普總統所說，2% 是一個開始，但這還不夠。

This kind of rhetoric has only grown louder since Donald Trump returned to the White House.

自唐納德-特朗普重返白宮以來，這種言論愈演愈烈。

It's not a coincidence that the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would ramp up defence spending in the UK just weeks after US President Donald Trump entered office.

就在美國總統唐納德-特朗普上任幾周後，英國首相基爾-斯塔默宣佈將增加英國的國防開支，這並非巧合。

Or that in May he signed a defence pact between the EU and the UK.

或者說，五月份他簽署了歐盟和英國之間的防務條約。

But as we've seen, Britain has decades of making up to do, munition stockpiles to replenish, soldiers and reservists to recruit, and we haven't even mentioned things like these, nuclear submarines or AI-guided drones and cyber defence.

但正如我們所看到的，英國還有幾十年的時間需要彌補，彈藥儲備需要補充，阿兵哥和預備役人員需要招募，我們甚至還沒有提到核潛艇、人工智能制導無人機和網絡防禦等問題。

In June, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves committed to greater spending on defence.

今年 6 月，英國財政大臣雷切爾-裡夫斯承諾增加國防開支。

Defence spending will now rise to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027, including the contribution of our intelligence agencies.

到 2027 年 4 月，國防開支將增至國內生產總值的 2.6%，其中包括我們情報機構的貢獻。

The government announced that it would be paid for by a reduction in spending on foreign aid.

政府宣佈將通過減少對外援助支出來支付這筆費用。

Now we're seeing NATO General Secretary Mark Rutter in fact commit to upping the NATO target to 5%.

現在，我們看到北約祕書長馬克-魯特事實上承諾將北約的目標提高到 5%。

By 2030 it would mean an extra £87bn worth of spending on defence.

到 2030 年，這意味著國防開支將增加 870 億英鎊。

That's an additional annual spend roughly equal to the UK's education budget, or a little under half what's currently spent on health and social care.

這相當於英國每年新增的教育預算，或目前醫療和社會福利開支的不到一半。

Bloomberg Economics estimated that raising defence spending to 5% of GDP will add £350bn to the level of government debt by 2032.

彭博經濟公司估計，到 2032 年，將國防開支提高到國內生產總值的 5%將使政府債務水準增加 3,500 億英鎊。

It has said in its manifesto that it doesn't want to raise income tax, it doesn't want to raise VAT, it doesn't want to raise corporation tax or employee national insurance contributions.

它在宣言中表示，它不想提高所得稅，不想提高增值稅，不想提高公司稅或員工國民保險繳款。

Those taxes account for the vast majority of tax revenue in the UK.

這些稅收佔英國稅收的絕大部分。

The other option is borrowing, but servicing Britain's existing debt, that is to say, just paying the interest, costs £100bn a year.

另一種選擇是借貸，但償還英國現有的債務，也就是說，僅僅支付利息，每年就要花費 1000 億英鎊。

A decision to hike that would be taken against a backdrop of elevated interest rates and start a figurative war with the bond market.

加息決定將在利率升高的背景下做出，並與債券市場展開一場具象的戰爭。

It's very hard to believe the government would be able to get away with raising borrowing by that amount.

很難相信政府能夠通過提高借款額度來逃避責任。

Add to this, polling suggests defence spending is low on the British public's priority list compared to healthcare, immigration or the economy.

此外，民意調查顯示，與醫療保健、移民或經濟問題相比，國防開支在英國公眾的優先考慮事項中排名靠後。

With that in mind, the other option, if it can be called such a thing, is to rely on high levels of defence spending in an attempt to boost long-term economic growth.

有鑑於此，另一種選擇--如果可以稱之為選擇的話--就是依靠高水平的國防開支來試圖促進長期經濟增長。

怎樣才能獲得最大的成功機會？

Well, it would be focusing expenditure on investments, and investments in this country.

那麼，它將把支出重點放在投資上，放在對這個國家的投資上。

It would be no good importing aircraft or aircraft carrier from the US.

從美國進口飛機或航空母艦是沒用的。

That wouldn't provide a domestic boost to the economy.

這不會對國內經濟起到推動作用。

And the other area where the evidence suggests that economies stand to benefit is where military spending is focused on research and development.

有證據表明，經濟受益的另一個領域是軍費重點用於研發的領域。

That could lift UK productivity, meaning employees create more value for the same amount of work.

這可以提高英國的生產率，意味著員工用同樣的工作量創造更多的價值。

For instance, producing autonomous drones rather than basic munitions or small arms.

例如，生產自主無人機，而不是基本彈藥或小武器。

Research and development takes up a very small share of the UK defence budget, so there would need to be a big ramp-up in research and development spending to yield a big impact on the economy.

研究與開發在英國國防預算中所佔份額很小，是以需要大幅增加研究與開發支出，才能對經濟產生重大影響。

More orders with defence contractors leads to jobs, more money spent by workers and thus more tax receipts for the government.

國防承包商的訂單越多，就業機會就越多，工人的支出就越多，政府的稅收也就越多。

The problem is that spinning up capacity takes time, and crucially, commitment.

問題是，提高產能需要時間，關鍵是要有決心。

I went, for example, to see a factory making munitions in the north of England for BAE Systems, which is a major defence contractor for the MOD.

例如，我去參觀了英格蘭北部一家為英國宇航系統公司（BAE Systems）製造彈藥的工廠，該公司是英國國防部的主要國防承包商。

They are bringing on more capacity, but that's because of prior agreements.

他們正在引進更多的產能，但這是由於之前的協議。

Industry will open a new line of production for artillery shells if they think that they're going to get 20 years of orders.

如果工業界認為他們將獲得 20 年的訂單，他們就會開設新的炮彈生產線。

If they think they're only going to get three years of orders, well, they might not do so.

如果他們認為只能拿到三年的訂單，那他們可能就不會這麼做了。

They need to be sure what the demand is, so they need those contracts from the UK government or from allied governments to know exactly what they need to make, and that's the kind of certainty that they've been looking for for a while.

他們需要確定需求是什麼，是以他們需要英國政府或盟國政府提供的合同，以確切知道他們需要生產什麼，而這正是他們一直在尋找的確定性。

Britain's defence strategy is now trapped by a fundamental paradox, a system designed for short-term survival is being asked to make long-term rearmament commitments.

英國的國防戰略現在陷入了一個根本性的悖論，一個為短期生存而設計的系統被要求做出長期重整軍備的承諾。

Everyone agrees Britain needs to prepare.

所有人都認為英國需要做好準備。

Nobody knows whether it can afford to. www.larryweaver.com