https://is.gd/tu3nqy 这是英文原报导的网址。
一、关于美军在西太平洋的战力是否能够遏阻共军？
答案当然是能够。而且能打到共军连妈妈都认不出来。但是为何有这类灭自己威风的说法
传出？因为钱没有人在嫌少的。钱越多越好。民主国家的公帑是纳税人出的，凭什么要元
老院同意给美军钱？
美国保守派智库与军方秉持“向元老院喊说自身快完了、美国要输给另外的恶霸了，求救
要黄金”的角度所贬低自身实力来图谋更多预算的惯例，大家应该要有所明了。摘录原文
例子如后。
The outgoing head of the U.S. military's Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Philip
Davidson, warned senators this month that the U.S. is losing its military edge
over China...
....
"We are accumulating risk that may embolden China to unilaterally change the
status quo before our forces may be able to deliver an effective response," the
admiral told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
二、台湾国军是否“很快”就输给共军？
答案是天晓得，但也不需悲观。台湾的陆军义务役战力一般般是一回事，国军的空军战机
飞行员素质不错，F-16V的性能也算先进，国军的制空权估计可以撑到美国国会紧急开会授
权总统行动，驻日美军接到华盛顿指示后，F-35战机1小时内可赶到参战、驻日美军航母战
斗群12小时内可后勤准备完成并赶到参战。那么怎么会有原文中那位智库分析师的观点？
因为在他看来，台湾的国防预算与其花在他认为的华而不实的F-16V战机、（反导弹的）爱
国者导弹，不如花在各式地雷水雷（以阻止共军渡海、登陆）、无人机、移动式反舰、反
机导弹。摘录部份原文例子如后。
But Ochmanek and other analysts argue that Taiwan — and the United States —
need lower-tech weapons to fend off a potential Chinese invasion, and that
big-ticket items like fighter jets and Patriot missiles will prove useless in
the event of a Chinese assault.
Ochmanek argues Taiwan should invest in mines, drones and mobile anti-ship and
anti-aircraft missiles that could slow a Chinese amphibious and airborne
invasion, providing precious time for U.S. help to arrive.
三、共军侵台，就算美军如这篇报导写的打不过共军，总之就问重点：美国会不会出手？
答案是“还是会”。这篇报导指出美国如果放任中国征服台湾的严重后果，原文例子如后
。逻辑上就有自明之理：若要防止严重后果成真、防止中共愚蠢到妄图破坏美国的核心根
本利益，美国自然就必须动真格的，包含参战，并且用太空武器击毁北斗通信卫星等等方
式，将共军打趴。
If China succeeded in subjugating democratic-ruled Taiwan, it would send
shockwaves through America's network of alliances, and cause other democratic
governments in Asia to doubt Washington's reliability and strength, officials
and experts said.