Name: 開戰一週後，伊朗飛彈戰力計算大公開！ (Calculating Iran's Missile Math After First Week of War)
Uploaded: 2026-03-06T21:34:20.000Z
Duration: 6 min 7 s

基礎被動語態

Their Navy is gone, 24 ships in three days.

他們的海軍沒了，三天內被擊沉了 24 艘軍艦。

So they have no air force, they have no air defense.

所以他們沒有空軍，也沒有防空能力。

All of their airplanes are gone, their communications are gone, missiles are gone, launches are gone about 60% and 64% respectively.

他們所有的飛機都沒了，通訊也斷了，飛彈也沒了，發射的數量大約分別損失了 60% 和 64%。

I'm joined now by Becca Wasser, Defense lead for Bloomberg Economics.

現在加入我們的是 Bloomberg Economics 的防務主管 Becca Wasser。

Becca, do we know how much of that is true?

Becca，我們知道有多少是真的嗎？

Well, at this point in time no one actually knows.

嗯，到目前為止，沒有人確切知道。

It's very difficult to do battle damage assessment in the fog and friction of war.

在戰爭的迷霧與摩擦中，要進行戰損評估是非常困難的。

That being said, we have updated numbers from U.S.

不過，我們有美國中央司令部更新的數字。

central Command where they say that the United States has taken out about 90% of Iran's missile capability, about 80% of their drone attack ability and increase the number of warships that have been sunk to 30.

中央司令部表示，美國已經摧毀了伊朗約90%的飛彈能力，約80%的無人機攻擊能力，並將被擊沉的軍艦數量增加到30艘。

However, that doesn't mean that the threat has dissipated.

不過，這並不代表威脅就此消散了。

I think we've seen continued attacks, particularly on the Gulf, largely from drones.

我認為我們看到持續的攻擊，特別是針對波斯灣，大多是來自無人機。

I think we're going to continue to see Iran strike back in whatever means it has possible.

我認為我們將會繼續看到伊朗用盡一切可能的方式反擊。

So all of that is to say that yes, there are great statistics coming out of the Defense Department at the moment about what they believe has been diminished in Iran, but

所以，這一切都是在說，是的，國防部目前有一些很棒的數據，說明他們認為伊朗的能力被削弱了多少，但是

that doesn't necessarily mean that Iran's capability to strike back is fully degraded.

這並不一定代表伊朗反擊的能力已經完全被削弱。

Yeah, there's a theory out there that Iran slow walked the beginning of this war in order to degrade some of the capabilities of countries around it.

是的，有一種理論認為，伊朗故意拖延這場戰爭的開端，目的是削弱周邊國家的一些能力。

這個說法有越來越多人相信嗎？

There are a number of different strategies that Iran could have.

伊朗其實有好幾種不同的策略可以選擇。

If you look at the rate of missile fire and you look at the rate of drone attacks, you do see for example against the UAE, this big wave, almost over 100 drones in the first day alone.

如果你看看飛彈發射的頻率，還有無人機攻擊的頻率，你會發現，舉例來說，針對阿聯酋，第一天就出現了超過一百架無人機的大規模攻擊。

But since then it has slowly and slowly dissipated, particularly on the missiles as the US has taken out some of their ability to launch missiles.

但從那之後，這些攻擊就慢慢地消散了，特別是飛彈攻擊，因為美國已經削弱了他們發射飛彈的能力。

So I think you are seeing this sort of trend where yes, you could see that maybe Iran is holding back some capabilities in order to be able to respond further in in the conflicts.

所以我認為你看到的是一種趨勢，是的，你可能會覺得伊朗可能正在保留一些能力，以便在衝突中做出更多回應。

But you know, there's also the chance that they are being heavily attrite of their capabilities and they don't really have that much to be able to bring to bear.

但你知道，也有可能他們的實力正在被大量消耗，實際上並沒有太多能力可以投入戰場。

You've also seen them take the approach of trying to regionalize the conflict which is trying to bring in the Gulf states and to a lesser extent we're starting to see some involvement from some European countries as they scramble to protect their assets and bases located elsewhere in the Middle East.

你也看到他們採取了區域化的策略，試圖將波斯灣國家捲入其中，而且我們也開始看到一些歐洲國家在其中扮演角色，因為他們正急於保護在中東其他地方的資產和基地。

I mean NATO making comments now too do we see Naito getting involved and Canada as well saying, you know, I mean, Mark Carney really did a nice 90 degree turn there and said that they would have no problem getting involved, but

我意思是，北約現在也有評論，我們是否會看到北約介入，加拿大也表示，你知道，我意思是，馬克·卡尼在那裡做了一個很漂亮的九十度轉彎，說他們不介意介入，但是

Why would they need to get involved in a defensive way?

他們為什麼需要以防禦姿態介入？

Well, I do think that we're not necessarily going to see NATO become a party to this conflict, but

嗯，我認為我們不一定會看到北約成為這場衝突的一方，但是

what we could see are individual NATO members get involved and part of this is for defensive reasons.

我們可能會看到個別的北約成員國介入，而其中一部分是出於防禦考量。

If you look across the region, the UK and France in particular have a number of military assets located at different bases, including in some cases CO located with US forces at bases in the Gulf and elsewhere in the Middle East.

如果你看看整個區域，英國和法國尤其在不同基地擁有不少軍事資產，包括在某些情況下與美軍一同駐紮在波斯灣及中東其他地方的基地。

So we've seen the UK already respond in order to defend some of their assets, including in places like Jordan, Cyprus as well as Qatar.

所以我們已經看到英國為了保護他們的一些資產而做出回應，包括在約旦、賽普勒斯以及卡達等地。

We've also seen France do something very similar.

So we might see their involvement in these one offs and in these purely defensive means.

所以我們可能會看到他們介入這些一次性的、純粹出於防禦目的的行動。

But I don't think we're necessarily going to see NATO as a whole join into the conflict, at least not at this juncture in time.

但我認為我們不一定會看到整個北約加入這場衝突，至少目前這個階段不會。

As things go on, we could see that shift.

隨著事態發展，我們可能會看到這種轉變。

But right now I think it's going to be one offs.

但目前我認為會是一次性的行動。

Becca, if this does continue for a bit longer, Washington is going to have to move to maybe less expensive but shorter range missiles.

Becca，如果這情況持續久一點，華盛頓可能得改用較便宜但射程較短的飛彈。

Because for something like that you really apparently need complete air superiority.

因為像那樣的行動，顯然真的需要完全的制空權。

The United States does not have air superiority or the ability to fly overseas, fly over Iran unconstituted, uncontested.

美國並沒有制空權，也沒有能力未經允許、未受挑戰地飛越伊朗上空。

Right now what it has is localized air superiority.

現在它擁有的是局部的制空權。

It has the ability to fly safely over Iran in pockets in particular areas.

它有能力在特定區域、局部範圍內安全飛越伊朗領空。

It doesn't have it over the entire country.

但並不是在整個國家範圍內都有。

And that's really important as the US is shifting to its next wave of attacks in this campaign where it's trying to be able to push aircraft forward and use shorter range joint direct attack weapons, which it has in greater numbers than some of these higher end, limited and higher cost long range standoff weapons.

這點非常重要，因為美國正準備在這個戰役中展開下一波攻擊，試圖能夠將飛機前推，並使用數量較多的短程聯合直接攻擊武器，相較於一些高階、有限且成本較高的長程對峙武器。

So the US needs to establish air superiority if it wants to make this shift towards moving closer in and using the weapons that it has in greater abundance.

所以，如果美國想進行這種轉變，靠近目標並使用其數量較多的武器，就必須建立制空權。

That being said, that doesn't mean that the the US has unlimited missiles.

話雖如此，這並不代表美國的飛彈是無限的。

We've seen in the past, for example, in operations against the Islamic State where the rate of US airstrikes were so high that they actually ran dangerously low on joint direct attack munitions and almost had to pull some of those missiles from other theaters, including Europe.

我們過去曾見過，例如在對抗伊斯蘭國的行動中，美軍的空襲頻率非常高，導致聯合直接攻擊彈藥嚴重短缺，甚至差點要從包括歐洲在內的其他戰區調用部分飛彈。