Define your goals
"If you don't know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere."
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
「目標不明確的話，走哪條路都會迷路」
「瞄準月亮，即便你沒達到，你將置身星星」
These common English phrases illustrate something that is simultaneously important and often neglected. Goals matter. To be more precise, defining your goals is crucial. If you don't have a clear grasp and understanding of your goals, it's easy to end up wandering aimlessly - this is evident not only at the personal level, but even for countries as well.
這些常見的英文俚語告訴我們一件既重要又容易被忽略的事情：目標很重要。應該說「定義清楚」目標很重要。沒弄清楚就容易漫無目的地遊蕩；個人或國家皆如此。
Here's an interesting example for illustration - why is the U.S. Navy (USN) asking for even *more* ships? Why 350? Why not 250, and spend the rest of the money on education? Well, that might be a fair goal, though from my selfish perspective here in Taiwan, I say we'd be pretty fucked.
今天就用美國海軍舉例：美國海軍已經世界第一了，怎麼還在要錢造船呢？為什麼要３５０艘船艦，何不２５０艘，然後剩下的錢投資教育？其實這個目標好像也挺好的，不過台灣也會因此被併吞就是了。
The appropriate number depends on need, which is determined by goals. If your goal is simply to deter a blockade around your country's primary territory, you obviously don't need as many ships and as much capability as a blue-water navy capable of operating in any part of the world.
適當的數量是由目標定義的。如果目標純粹是懾止敵人建立海域封鎖，那所需要的船艦和能力當然會小於能跑遍全球的海軍。
The USN wants more ships, because it keeps getting more and more work. It's like you're a graphic designer at work, where your manager keeps giving you increasingly difficult and numerous tasks. You're going to start asking for a second monitor, a better graphics card, and maybe even an SSD to make it possible for you to actually do your job.
美國海軍工作量越來越大，所以船艦的需求自然升高。就好比你是一位設計師，主管不斷地給你更加困難的任務。你當然會盡可能地去要第二個螢幕、更好的顯卡、如果要得到固態硬碟SSD就爽歪了，終於能夠有效的完成工作。
Off the top of my head, these are the missions that the USN is already involved in:
依我所知，隨便想想就想起海軍正在進行的任務：
Persian Gulf - ISIS/Daesh, freedom of navigation
Carribbean Sea - counter narcotics, counter piracy
South America - counter narcotics, training international partners
Mediterranean Sea - sea rescue
Black Sea - freedom of navigation
Baltic Sea - freedom of navigation
North Sea - training international partners
Malacca Strait - counter piracy
South China Sea - freedom of navigation, Taiwan
Yellow Sea / Sea of Japan - North Korea
波斯灣：ISIS/Daesh, 航行自由
加勒比海：反毒，反海盜
南美洲：反毒，訓練國際盟友
地中海：救援
黑海：航行自由
波羅的海：航行自由
北海：訓練國際盟友
麻六甲海峽：反海盜
南海：航行自由，保護台灣
黃海／日本海：北韓
You also have training on top of that, but the point is looking through this listing, only the Persian Gulf currently entails combat operations. Suppose a war breaks out in the South China Sea. The USN already has enough assets and firepower to fight a full-scale war against either China or Russia, but it would also have to cancel most of the other missions above.
除此之外也有例行的訓練任務，不過重點是上述任務當中只有波斯灣的算是作戰行動。假設某天南海引發戰爭了，海軍已經有足夠的火力跟船艦和中國會俄國對抗，但前提是上述的任務幾乎要全數取消。
Now to a certain extent, some of the missions above could be cancelled without much negative repercussion, but maintaining open sea lanes and keeping cargo safe from hijackings is an important job. Trillions of dollars of global trade rely on safe and consistent sea lanes. Even without an actual full-scale conflict, ships are already overworked and showing up for deployment behind schedule.
就某程度來說，取消上述任務也不會世界末日，但同時也千萬別小看航行自由，反海盜劫船的重要性；全球貿易建立在安全穩定的航海線。況且沒有大規模戰爭的前提之下，海軍已經有「工作超時」的問題了。
The Navy has a fairly logical "Golden Rule of 3". In essence, it means that for every 3 ships you have, 1) is in long term maintenance, 2) is returning from or preparing for deployment, 3) is ready or currently in deployment. That's why it has 12 carriers, and why China's goal for the next few decades is 3. Current mission goals mandate 1 for Japan, 2 in the Pacific, and 1 in the Atlantic. Follow the Golden Rule and that means you need 12 total, assuming your goals don't change. (i.e. the President being able to pick up the phone at any time, knowing that he has carriers available anywhere in the world)
簡單來講，美國海軍遵循個一個「黃金３比例」。每３艘船艦，就會有１艘在做長期維修，有１艘正準備任務或從任務回航，有１艘正準備出勤或正在執行任務當中。這也是為什麼美國有１２艘航空母艦，以及為何中國未來十幾年的目標為建造好３艘。目前的任務需求等於是規定了美國航母有１艘在日本，２艘在太平洋，和１艘在太平洋。遵循比例去算就是１２了，而唯一的改變方式就是改變目標。（現在的「目標」可說是讓美國總統隨時都能打電話要求航母在２４小時內到達世界任何地方）
(Interestingly, France and the U.K. have agreed to coordinate operations for their combined 3 carriers in similar fashion)
（有趣的是法國和英國共有３艘航母，兩國有達成共識用相同的行程安排出行分工）
Sure, you can spend less time on maintenance and get them out faster, but your ships will also break down a lot faster too. Perhaps they would have lasted 40 years, but ultimately you only get 25 years out of them, which ends up costing even more money in the long run.
當然，整修時間可以縮減，但船艦也會更容易老舊、故障。原本能用４０年的船艦最後可能惡操了２５年之後就要賣台灣了（咦？），終究反而更浪費資源。
Now, since the Cold War, doctrine and goals have already changed. Back then, the USN was tasked with fighting and winning a war on 2 different fronts simultaneously. After the fall of the Soviet Union, spending did decrease (though not as much as one might hope), changing the mission to holding one front while fighting on the other. (think WWII, where the German front was prioritized over the Pacific front)
其實冷戰結束後美國海軍的任務已經有改變了。當時海軍的任務是要同時在世界兩地打贏戰爭，而蘇聯瓦解後隨著金費的縮減（話說也沒有縮減得多誇張啦），任務改成先在一邊打個平手，另一邊打贏之後再來支援（就是二戰的做法，優先打贏德國後再全力打日本）。
The U.S. assumes the worst case scenario is fighting a combined Russian-Chinese force, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. The logic behind a 350 ship fleet is a return to the ability to fight on two fronts simultaneously.
美國設想的最糟情況就是要同時跟結盟的俄國和中國作戰，太平洋大西洋各打一國。３５０艘船艦的海軍由來是這裡；回歸到能同時在兩個戰場打勝仗的設想。
Basically, if you want to decrease the size of the military budget, you need to adjust your goals. The U.S. spends money to facilitate free trade, because it believes that the cost is worth it. Those who give the most call the shots. Without changing your goals (i.e. giving up on stopping piracy around Africa, giving up the ability to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, giving up the ability to make a retaliatory nuclear strike at any time, giving up the ability to provide humanitarian aid anywhere within 24 hours...), cutting funding is simply unrealistic.
總結就是如果要縮減軍事開銷，就必然要從任務開刀。美國願意砸大錢促進加維護自由貿易，因為他認為利大於弊。誰貢獻最大，誰當老大。當然，是否該修正目標則是一個值得辯論的議題，要好好想一下哪些東西值得放棄，哪些再大的代價都要保留（例如：放棄在非洲索馬利亞阻止海盜劫船，放棄台灣，放棄保證核武反擊能力，放棄２４小時內在世界任何地方提供救助...）。
Discussion of goals, and whether or not it's worth it - that's a debate worth having. Of course, that never actually happens.
當然啦，我們從來不會有這樣的辯論或對話，就是名嘴在電視上吵架罷了。
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
「目標不明確的話，走哪條路都會迷路」
「瞄準月亮，即便你沒達到，你將置身星星」
These common English phrases illustrate something that is simultaneously important and often neglected. Goals matter. To be more precise, defining your goals is crucial. If you don't have a clear grasp and understanding of your goals, it's easy to end up wandering aimlessly - this is evident not only at the personal level, but even for countries as well.
這些常見的英文俚語告訴我們一件既重要又容易被忽略的事情：目標很重要。應該說「定義清楚」目標很重要。沒弄清楚就容易漫無目的地遊蕩；個人或國家皆如此。
Here's an interesting example for illustration - why is the U.S. Navy (USN) asking for even *more* ships? Why 350? Why not 250, and spend the rest of the money on education? Well, that might be a fair goal, though from my selfish perspective here in Taiwan, I say we'd be pretty fucked.
今天就用美國海軍舉例：美國海軍已經世界第一了，怎麼還在要錢造船呢？為什麼要３５０艘船艦，何不２５０艘，然後剩下的錢投資教育？其實這個目標好像也挺好的，不過台灣也會因此被併吞就是了。
The appropriate number depends on need, which is determined by goals. If your goal is simply to deter a blockade around your country's primary territory, you obviously don't need as many ships and as much capability as a blue-water navy capable of operating in any part of the world.
適當的數量是由目標定義的。如果目標純粹是懾止敵人建立海域封鎖，那所需要的船艦和能力當然會小於能跑遍全球的海軍。
The USN wants more ships, because it keeps getting more and more work. It's like you're a graphic designer at work, where your manager keeps giving you increasingly difficult and numerous tasks. You're going to start asking for a second monitor, a better graphics card, and maybe even an SSD to make it possible for you to actually do your job.
美國海軍工作量越來越大，所以船艦的需求自然升高。就好比你是一位設計師，主管不斷地給你更加困難的任務。你當然會盡可能地去要第二個螢幕、更好的顯卡、如果要得到固態硬碟SSD就爽歪了，終於能夠有效的完成工作。
Off the top of my head, these are the missions that the USN is already involved in:
依我所知，隨便想想就想起海軍正在進行的任務：
Persian Gulf - ISIS/Daesh, freedom of navigation
Carribbean Sea - counter narcotics, counter piracy
South America - counter narcotics, training international partners
Mediterranean Sea - sea rescue
Black Sea - freedom of navigation
Baltic Sea - freedom of navigation
North Sea - training international partners
Malacca Strait - counter piracy
South China Sea - freedom of navigation, Taiwan
Yellow Sea / Sea of Japan - North Korea
波斯灣：ISIS/Daesh, 航行自由
加勒比海：反毒，反海盜
南美洲：反毒，訓練國際盟友
地中海：救援
黑海：航行自由
波羅的海：航行自由
北海：訓練國際盟友
麻六甲海峽：反海盜
南海：航行自由，保護台灣
黃海／日本海：北韓
You also have training on top of that, but the point is looking through this listing, only the Persian Gulf currently entails combat operations. Suppose a war breaks out in the South China Sea. The USN already has enough assets and firepower to fight a full-scale war against either China or Russia, but it would also have to cancel most of the other missions above.
除此之外也有例行的訓練任務，不過重點是上述任務當中只有波斯灣的算是作戰行動。假設某天南海引發戰爭了，海軍已經有足夠的火力跟船艦和中國會俄國對抗，但前提是上述的任務幾乎要全數取消。
Now to a certain extent, some of the missions above could be cancelled without much negative repercussion, but maintaining open sea lanes and keeping cargo safe from hijackings is an important job. Trillions of dollars of global trade rely on safe and consistent sea lanes. Even without an actual full-scale conflict, ships are already overworked and showing up for deployment behind schedule.
就某程度來說，取消上述任務也不會世界末日，但同時也千萬別小看航行自由，反海盜劫船的重要性；全球貿易建立在安全穩定的航海線。況且沒有大規模戰爭的前提之下，海軍已經有「工作超時」的問題了。
The Navy has a fairly logical "Golden Rule of 3". In essence, it means that for every 3 ships you have, 1) is in long term maintenance, 2) is returning from or preparing for deployment, 3) is ready or currently in deployment. That's why it has 12 carriers, and why China's goal for the next few decades is 3. Current mission goals mandate 1 for Japan, 2 in the Pacific, and 1 in the Atlantic. Follow the Golden Rule and that means you need 12 total, assuming your goals don't change. (i.e. the President being able to pick up the phone at any time, knowing that he has carriers available anywhere in the world)
簡單來講，美國海軍遵循個一個「黃金３比例」。每３艘船艦，就會有１艘在做長期維修，有１艘正準備任務或從任務回航，有１艘正準備出勤或正在執行任務當中。這也是為什麼美國有１２艘航空母艦，以及為何中國未來十幾年的目標為建造好３艘。目前的任務需求等於是規定了美國航母有１艘在日本，２艘在太平洋，和１艘在太平洋。遵循比例去算就是１２了，而唯一的改變方式就是改變目標。（現在的「目標」可說是讓美國總統隨時都能打電話要求航母在２４小時內到達世界任何地方）
(Interestingly, France and the U.K. have agreed to coordinate operations for their combined 3 carriers in similar fashion)
（有趣的是法國和英國共有３艘航母，兩國有達成共識用相同的行程安排出行分工）
Sure, you can spend less time on maintenance and get them out faster, but your ships will also break down a lot faster too. Perhaps they would have lasted 40 years, but ultimately you only get 25 years out of them, which ends up costing even more money in the long run.
當然，整修時間可以縮減，但船艦也會更容易老舊、故障。原本能用４０年的船艦最後可能惡操了２５年之後就要賣台灣了（咦？），終究反而更浪費資源。
Now, since the Cold War, doctrine and goals have already changed. Back then, the USN was tasked with fighting and winning a war on 2 different fronts simultaneously. After the fall of the Soviet Union, spending did decrease (though not as much as one might hope), changing the mission to holding one front while fighting on the other. (think WWII, where the German front was prioritized over the Pacific front)
其實冷戰結束後美國海軍的任務已經有改變了。當時海軍的任務是要同時在世界兩地打贏戰爭，而蘇聯瓦解後隨著金費的縮減（話說也沒有縮減得多誇張啦），任務改成先在一邊打個平手，另一邊打贏之後再來支援（就是二戰的做法，優先打贏德國後再全力打日本）。
The U.S. assumes the worst case scenario is fighting a combined Russian-Chinese force, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. The logic behind a 350 ship fleet is a return to the ability to fight on two fronts simultaneously.
美國設想的最糟情況就是要同時跟結盟的俄國和中國作戰，太平洋大西洋各打一國。３５０艘船艦的海軍由來是這裡；回歸到能同時在兩個戰場打勝仗的設想。
Basically, if you want to decrease the size of the military budget, you need to adjust your goals. The U.S. spends money to facilitate free trade, because it believes that the cost is worth it. Those who give the most call the shots. Without changing your goals (i.e. giving up on stopping piracy around Africa, giving up the ability to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, giving up the ability to make a retaliatory nuclear strike at any time, giving up the ability to provide humanitarian aid anywhere within 24 hours...), cutting funding is simply unrealistic.
總結就是如果要縮減軍事開銷，就必然要從任務開刀。美國願意砸大錢促進加維護自由貿易，因為他認為利大於弊。誰貢獻最大，誰當老大。當然，是否該修正目標則是一個值得辯論的議題，要好好想一下哪些東西值得放棄，哪些再大的代價都要保留（例如：放棄在非洲索馬利亞阻止海盜劫船，放棄台灣，放棄保證核武反擊能力，放棄２４小時內在世界任何地方提供救助...）。
Discussion of goals, and whether or not it's worth it - that's a debate worth having. Of course, that never actually happens.
當然啦，我們從來不會有這樣的辯論或對話，就是名嘴在電視上吵架罷了。
Comments
Post a Comment