Elizabeth Warren thinks so. America’s allies do not
未翻译原文阅读：Should America rule out first use of nuclear weapons?
President Barack Obama promised that he would reduce the role that nuclear weapons played in America’s national security strategy. His successor has done the opposite. In a review of nuclear policy published in February 2018, Donald Trump seemed to expand the circumstances in which America might use nuclear weapons first, to include cyber-attacks on the networks that transmit presidential orders to silos, submarines and bombers. He also ordered the manufacture of new low-yield warheads (these are equivalent to about half a Hiroshima(广岛市)), which critics fear are more likely to be used. And he has issued hair-raising threats against North Korea, alarming those who worry about his impulsiveness. All this is fuelling a debate about nuclear risks.
hair-raising adj.令人毛骨悚然的
fuel v.使…加剧
前总统贝拉克·奥巴马曾承诺会减少核武器在美国的国家安全战略中的比重。而他的继任者则做出了相反的选择。根据2018年1月的核武策略分析报告，特朗普希望在更多地情况下，美国能首先使用核武器，这其中包括通过发动网络攻击，向发射井、轰炸机和潜艇下达总统命令。同时，特朗普下令生产新型的低当量核弹头——该类型核弹头的破坏力相当于在广岛使用的核弹的一半——而这种核弹头将很有可能被投入到未来的战争。此外，特朗普多次威胁朝鲜，这也让那些本就担心他会冲动的人更是提心吊胆。以上这一切使得关于核风险的讨论越发激烈。
Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential contender, wants to start with American nuclear doctrine. Every president since Harry Truman（哈里·杜鲁门） has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in a conflict even if an enemy has not unleashed them first. In January Ms Warren introduced a Senate bill that would mandate a policy of what wonks call No First Use (NFU). Such pledges are common: China and India committed themselves to versions of NFU decades ago, as did the Soviet Union. But in America it would reverse over seven decades of nuclear thinking.
contender n.竞争者
unleash v.发动
wonk n.政策专家
对美国应该遵循什么样的核武使用原则的讨论始于民主党总统候选人伊丽莎白·沃伦。自哈里·杜鲁门以来的每一任美国总统都保留着一项权力，那就是在冲突发生时，即使敌方没有首先使用核武器，总统也有权下令使用。在今年一月份，沃伦提出了一项参议院提案，旨在通过被专家称为“不首先使用核武器”的法案。该法案所涉及的承诺是极为常见的，中国和印度，甚至苏联都做出了类似的“不首先使用核武器”的承诺。但对美国而言，这一承诺将会彻底改变美国人几十年来的核武思维。
Proponents of NFU argue that launching nuclear weapons first in a conflict is neither necessary nor wise. It is not necessary because America’s regular armed forces are strong enough to defeat enemies without recourse to weapons of mass destruction. It is not wise because an adversary that fears an American bolt from the blue is more likely to put its own arsenal on hair-trigger alert, increasing the risk of unauthorised or accidental launch. An adversary might also be tempted to pre-empt America by going even faster, a dangerous dynamic that Thomas Schelling（托马斯·谢林）, an economist and nuclear theorist, called the “reciprocal fear of surprise attack”.
without recourse to 无须求助于
a bolt from the blue 意外事件
pre-empt v.抢先压制
在“不首先使用核武器”的倡导者看来，在冲突中首先使用核武器这一行为既不必要，也不明智。之所以说这一行为并不必要，是因为即使在不动用核武器的情况下，美军也能战胜敌人。而它的不明智在于，对于美国的对手来说，它们因过于恐惧美方的突袭而随时准备给予武力还击，这无疑会增加误射和未授权攻击发生的风险。此外，敌国甚至会想要抢先使用武力压制美国，这样一种恶性循环的动态就印证了经济学家及核理论学家托马斯·谢林所提出的理论——“双方将陷入对偷袭的巨大恐惧”。
That is all well and good, say critics of NFU. But America is in a different position from China and India. It not only defends itself, but also extends a protective nuclear umbrella over allies around the world. If North Korea were to invade South Korea with its ample army, it must reckon with the possibility of a nuclear response from America. The South Korean government would like to keep it that way.
reckon with 考虑，重视
all well and good ：If you say that something is all well and good, you are suggesting that it has faults or disadvantages, although it may appear to be correct or reasonable.
“不首先使用核武器”原则的批评者认为，虽然以上说法看起来是很合理的，但是美国与中国和印度的情况是不太一样的。美国不仅要保护自己的领土，同时还要为它在世界各地的盟友撑起核保护伞。假如朝鲜想要对韩国动武，那朝鲜就要考虑到美国动用核武器反击的可能性。在这种威胁之下，朝鲜政府将会选择维持当前按兵不动的局面。
Estonia and Taiwan would like Russia and China, respectively, to face similar uncertainty. Thus when Mr Obama toyed with the idea of pledging NFU during his administration, Britain, Japan, France and South Korea—all American allies facing more populous foes—lobbied successfully against such a move.
respectively adv.各自
toy with 考虑
foe n.敌人
同样地，爱沙尼亚和台湾也希望俄罗斯和中国能分别面临类似的遭受核武反击的可能性。因而，虽然前总统奥巴马在任时曾考虑过做出“不首先使用核武器”的承诺，但英、日、韩、法这四个处在他国威胁中的国家通过游说成功地阻止了这一想法付诸实践。
NFU-sceptics also point to the increasing potency of non-nuclear weapons. Like America, China and Russia are both developing hypersonic missiles capable of crossing oceans at over five times the speed of sound. Some might destroy targets with nothing more than their kinetic energy（动能）—no need for nuclear tips. Chemical and biological weapons could also wreak havoc without splitting atoms.
tip n.顶端附加物
wreak v.造成（灾难，破坏）
havoc n.大破坏
split atoms 原子弹是利用铀和钚等较容易裂变的重原子核在核裂变瞬间可以发出巨大能量的原理而发生爆炸的。因此，此处用裂解原子核指代原子弹。
“不首先使用核武器”的反对者还提到非核武器日益增大的破坏力。和美国一样，中国和俄罗斯都在研发超音速导弹，这种武器能以超过五倍音速的速度飞跃大洋并打击对手。某些超音速导弹甚至不需要核弹头的帮助，光是发射带来的巨大动能就足以毁灭目标。此外，生化武器也能够造成巨大的破坏。
That would put an NFU-bound America in an invidious position. If such non-nuclear missiles were falling on Washington, should a nuclear response be off the table? And even if it was declared to be so, would adversaries believe it? After all, Pakistan is scornful of India’s own NFU pledge, just as America is sceptical of China’s. Talk is cheap, trust is in short supply and the stakes could not be higher.
invidious adj.令人反感的
off the table 不予考虑
be scornful of 对…轻蔑的，鄙视
上述两种武器会让接受了“不首先使用核武器”的美国处于一个非常不利的境地。假设真的有类似的非核武器被用来攻击华盛顿，这时候放弃使用核武器进行反击真的合理吗？并且，即使美国决定放弃“首先使用核武器”原则，美国的敌人会相信吗？毕竟，巴基斯坦不相信伊朗的承诺，美国也不相信中国会放弃首先使用核武的权利。宣言是不值钱的，信任是匮乏的，而风险却是巨大的。
Whereas Ms Warren’s proposal would outlaw first use under any circumstances, others merely wish to place checks on this untrammelled presidential launch authority. America’s nuclear chain of command was designed to concentrate decision-making in the White House and to keep it away from generals. James Mattis, Mr Trump’s defence secretary until last year, reassured outsiders that he would serve as a check, telling Strategic Command（美国战略司令部） “not to put on a pot of coffee without letting him know”, according to the Washington Post. But he had no foolproof means to guarantee he could do this.
outlaw v.宣布…为非法，剥夺…权利
check n.限制，抑制
untrammeled adj.未受限制的
foolproof adj.万无一失的
沃伦的提案将会取消美国在任何情况下首先使用核武器的权利，但对于其他人来说，他们只是希望能对总统的核武发射权加以限制。根据美国的核武发射指令系统的设计，最终的发射决定将完全取决于白宫的意愿，并将军方的意见完全排除在外。根据华盛顿邮报的报道，曾担任特朗普政府国防部长的詹姆斯·马蒂斯曾向外界保证，他会承担起一个监督员的角色，他告诉美国战略司令部，即使是一杯咖啡这种小事也需要经过他的同意。但问题是，他的这一保证毫无依据。
“The weight of the open evidence” suggests that “the Secretary of Defence is not just unnecessary, but not even in the nuclear chain of command,” says Alex Wellerstein, an expert on nuclear history at the Stevens Institute of Technology（史蒂文斯理工学院）. William Perry, a former defence secretary, agrees. The president is free to instruct the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff（美国参谋长联席会议）, the top military officer, as he wishes. “We built a system that depends on having a rational actor in the White House,” says Alexandra Bell, a former State Department official now at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “We now know the system is flawed.”
史蒂文理工学院核武历史研究专家亚历克斯·韦勒斯坦认为，“公开的证据”表明，“国防部长的存在不仅毫无意义，而且国防部长甚至没有在美国的核武发射指令系统中承担任何角色”。前国防部长威廉·佩里对此观点表示认同。只要总统愿意，即使参谋长联席会议主席是美军最高级军官，他也有权力对其下达命令。现就职于军备控制与防扩散中心的前国务院官员亚历山德拉·贝尔表示：“我们建立的系统能否正常运行取决于总统是否是位理性行为者，而现在我们知道了这套系统是有缺陷的。”
America first
In January Congressman Ted Lieu and Senator Ed Markey, both Democrats, reintroduced a bill, originally proposed in 2016, that would force the president to seek a congressional declaration of war (last done in 1942) with express approval for nuclear first use. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, endorsed the idea in 2017.
express adj.明确的
在今年一月，民主党众议院议员刘云平和民主党参议员埃德·马基重新提交了一份曾在2016年被提交过的提案，该提案要求总统在实施首先使用核武器权之前必须取得国会的宣战声明以及对首先使用核武器的明确表态。民主党众议院议长南希·佩洛西在2017年表达了对这一提案的支持。
There are also wider efforts to prune the arsenal. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee（美国众议院军事委员会） and co-sponsor of Ms. Warren’s NFU bill, has sought to cut funding for Mr. Trump’s mini-nuke（迷你核武器） and to limit its deployment on submarines. To the Pentagon’s horror, he has also suggested scrapping America’s silo-based missiles, leaving the job to submarines and bombers（轰炸机）.
prune v.削减，减少
scrap v.取消
silo-based 依赖于发射井的导弹/发射井内的导弹
一直以来人们做了大量的努力来削减军备。作为众议院军事委员会主席，沃伦“不首先使用核武器”提案的另一提出者，亚当·斯密还希望能缩减特朗普在迷你核武器上的经费，并限制潜艇部署该武器。令国防部感到慌乱的是，他同时还建议取消美国的导弹发射井，转而使用潜艇和轰炸机来发射核武器。
Politicians should not expect clear guidance from voters. A survey in 2010 found that 57% agreed with Ms. Warren that “the US should only use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by another nation.” Yet it turns out that Americans also quite like fire and fury. A paper by Scott Sagan of Stanford University and Benjamin Valentino of Dartmouth College（达特茅斯学院）, published in 2017, found that a clear majority approved of using nuclear weapons first if doing so would save the lives of 20,000 American soldiers—even if it killed 2m Iranian civilians. “The conventional wisdom around nuclear weapons remains strongly embedded,” says Jon Wolfsthal, director of the Nuclear Crisis Group and a former official in Mr. Obama’s administration. “I am not sure there will be changes, but big changes are being discussed more openly now than in a long time.”
fury n.怒火
embedded adj.根深蒂固的
政府不应该妄想从选民那里得到一个清晰的方向。根据一份2010年的调查，约有57%的受访者赞成沃伦所提出的“只有在敌方率先使用核武器之后，美国才能使用核武器”。但同时，事实证明美国民众又极为好战。斯坦福大学的斯科特·萨根和特茅斯学院的本杰明·瓦伦蒂诺在2017年发表了一篇（相关）文章，其中提到，大多数美国人认为，如果首先使用核武器能避免两万美军的死亡，那即使这一举措会造成两百万伊朗平民的死亡也在所不惜。核危机应急处理小组主管，前奥巴马政府官员乔恩·沃尔夫施塔尔表示：“关于核武器使用的传统观念依旧是根深蒂固的。我并不确定今后是否会有不同，但可以确定的是，与过去相比，如今的巨大变化在于这一问题得到了更多公开讨论。”
翻译：这么飘来漂去
校对：大珠子
文章评论