演讲MP3+双语文稿:关于核武器，我们应该问这3个问题
听力课堂TED音频栏目主要包括TED演讲的音频MP3及中英双语文稿，供各位英语爱好者学习使用。本文主要内容为演讲MP3+双语文稿:关于核武器，我们应该问这3个问题，希望你会喜欢！
【演讲者及介绍】Emma Belcher
艾玛·贝尔彻——核安全专家。Emma Belcher制定并实施了减少核武器威胁的战略。
【演讲主题】关于核武器，我们应该问这三个问题
【中英文字幕】
翻译者 Saanman Fong，校对者 Lipeng Chen
00:14
So you know when you're doubled over inpain and you're wondering, is it your appendix or maybe you ate somethingfunny? Well, when that happens to me, I call my friend Sasha -- Sasha is adoctor -- and I say, "Should I rush to the nearest emergency room in apanic? Or am I OK to relax and just wait it out?" Yes, I am that annoyingfriend.
你们有没有过身体特别的难受的时候，你在想是不是得了阑尾炎，或者是吃坏了肚子？我碰上这种事，我会给我的朋友萨莎打电话——萨莎是个医生——我说“我是不是得火急火燎得跑去最近的急救中心？”还是我可以放轻松，等它自己好就行？”没错，我就是那个烦人的朋友。
00:39
But in September 2017, friends of mine weresuddenly calling me for my professional opinion. And no, I'm not a doctor, butthey were asking me questions of life and death.
不过在 2017 年的九月份，我的一些朋友突然打电话找我，来征求我专业的看法。而且不，我并不是个医生，不过他们问我的是关于生与死的问题。
00:54
So what was going on in September of 2017?Well, was suddenly and scarily all over the news. had tested missilespotentially capable of hitting major US cities, and President had respondedwith tweets of "fire and fury." And there was real concern thattensions would escalate to a potential war or even nuclear weapons use. So whatmy friends were calling and asking was: Should they panic or were the OK torelax? But really, they were asking me a fundamental question: "Am Isafe?"
那么 2017 年九月发生了什么呢？在一夜之间，遍布各大新闻媒体，引得人心惶惶。他们进行了导弹的试射试验，而这些导弹具有打击美国主要城市的潜力，总统在推特中以“炮火与怒火”回击。人们非常担忧目前紧张的局势有可能恶化，升级成一场潜在的战争，或甚至要使用核武器。所以我的朋友打电话来问的是：他们是否要开始恐慌，还是说他们可以放心？其实他们都在问一个基本问题：“我现在安全吗？”
01:41
While I was reassuring them that, no, theydidn't need to worry just yet, the irony of their question dawned on me. Whatthey hadn't really thought about is that we've all been living under a muchlarger cloud for decades -- potentially a mushroom cloud -- without giving itmuch thought.
在我劝他们放轻松，没事的，他们还不必为此担心的时候，我意识到他们问题中很讽刺的一点。他们没有想到的是，我们在这种乌云笼罩的状况下生活数十年了——甚至还可能是蘑菇云——我们却没去多想。
02:00
Now it's not surprising that friends ofmine and many others like them don't know much about nuclear weapons and don'tthink about them. After all, the end of the Cold War, the United States andRussia, tension abated, we started dismantling nuclear weapons, and theystarted to become a relic of the past. Generations didn't have to grow up withthe specter of nuclear war hanging over their heads. And there other reasonspeople don't like to think about nuclear weapons. It's scary, overwhelming. Iget it. Sometimes I wish I could have chosen a cheerier field to study.
那么如今我的朋友和许多其他人 不怎么了解也不去关注核武器，也就不奇怪了。毕竟冷战结束后，美国和俄罗斯间局势缓和，我们开始销毁核武器，然后这种武器逐渐成为历史。新一代人不需要在 核战争的在阴霾下长大。还有其他的原因让人 不喜欢去想核武器的事。它很吓人，让人无所适从。我能理解。有时我也希望我当初选个愉快一点的研究领域。
02:36
(Laughter) Perhaps tax law would have beenmore uplifting.
（笑声）也许学税法更能振奋人心一些。
02:40
(Laughter) But in addition to that, peoplehave so many other things to think about in their busy lives, and they'd muchprefer to think about something over which they feel they have some semblanceof control, and they assume that other people, smarter than they on this topic,are working away to keep us all safe. And then, there are other reasons peopledon't talk about this, and one is because we, as nuclear experts, use a wholelot of convoluted jargon and terminology to talk about these issues: CVID,ICBM, JCPOA. It's really inaccessible for a lot of people. And, in reality, itactually sometimes I think makes us numb to what we're really talking abouthere.
（笑声）但是除此之外，人们在繁忙的生活中有那么多别的东西要去考虑，他们更愿意去为那些看似在他们控制之下的事情思考，并且他们都以为总有别人，比他们自己在这方面更聪明的人，正在全力解决这个问题，好让大家都平平安安。另外人们不爱讨论核武器还有其他原因，其中之一便是我们核专家，会用很多晦涩难懂的行话和专业术语来谈论这些问题： CVID、ICBM、JCPOA。这对很多人来说是难以理解的。并且事实上我认为有时这反而让我们对我们真正想要讨论的东西感到麻木，
03:29
And what we are really talking about hereis the fact that, while we've made dramatic reductions in the number of nuclearweapons since the Cold War, right now, there are almost 15,000 in the worldtoday. 15,000. The United States and Russia have over 90 percent of thesenuclear weapons. If you're wondering, these are the countries that have therest. But they have far fewer, ranging in the sort of 300-ish range and below.
而我们在此真正想要讨论的东西，实际上是尽管我们从冷战以来已经在数量上大幅减少核武器，但是现在世界上仍然有将近一万五千枚核弹头。一万五千枚。美国和俄罗斯拥有超过 90% 的核武器。如果你想知道的话，这些国家拥有剩下的核武器。但是他们拥有的数量少太多了，在大约 300 多的范围内或者更少。
04:05
Adding to this situation is the fact thatwe have new technologies that potentially bring us new challenges. Could youimagine, one day, countries like ours and others potentially ceding decisionsabout a nuclear strike to a robot, based on algorithms? And what data do theyuse to inform those algorithms? This is pretty terrifying. So adding to thisare terrorism potential, cyberattacks, miscalculation, misunderstanding. Thelist of nuclear nightmares tends to grow longer by the day. And there are anumber of former officials, as well as experts, who worry that right now, we'rein greater danger than we were in various points in the Cold War.
更加雪上加霜的是，我们拥有的最新科技可能会给我们带来全新的挑战。你可以想象吗？某一天类似我们的和他们的国家有可能把执行核打击的决策大权交给一个基于计算机算法的机器人来决定。那么他们要用什么数据来支持这些算法呢？这太可怕了。除此之外还有潜在的恐怖主义、网络攻击、计算差错和各国间的误会。核武器带来的噩梦只会一天比一天多。并且有不少前任政府官员和专家们 担心我们现在正处于 比冷战的各个时刻更大的危险之中。
04:55
So this is scary. What can we do?
这是很恐怖。那我们能做些什么？
05:05
We can take some control, and the way we dothat is by starting to ask some fundamental questions about the status quo andwhether we are happy with the way it is. We need to begin asking questions ofourselves and of our elected officials, and I'd like to share three with youtoday.
我们可以对此有所控制，而为了实现这个，我们要对于现状问几个基本的问题，以及我们是否觉得现状可以接受。我们要向我们自己提问，向政府官员们提问，而今天我很乐意和你们分享三个问题。
05:27
The first one is, "How much nuclearrisk are you willing to take or tolerate?" Right now, nuclear policydepends on deterrence theory. Developed in the 1950s, the idea is that onecountry's nuclear weapons prevents another country from using theirs. So younuke me, I nuke you, and we both lose. So in a way, there's a stalemate. No oneuses their weapons, and we're all safe. But this theory has real questions.There are experts who challenge this theory and wonder: Does it really workthis way in practice? It certainly doesn't allow for mistakes ormiscalculations. Now, I don't know about you, but I feel pretty uncomfortablegambling my future survival, yours, and our future generations', on a theorythat is questionable and doesn't allow any room for a mistake. It makes me evenmore uncomfortable to be threatening the evaporation of millions of people onthe other side of the Earth. Surely we can do better for ourselves, drawing onour ingenuity to solve complex problems, as we have in the past. After all,this is a man-made, human-made -- I shouldn't say "man," becausewomen were involved -- a human-made problem. We have human solutions thatshould be possible.
第一个是，“你愿意承担多大的核风险？”现在，核武器政策取决于威慑理论。这套理论在 50 年代提出，意思是一个国家拥有核武器会防止其他国家用他们的核武器。你核爆我，我就核爆你，我们都是输家。所以某种程度上说，双方陷入僵局。没人用他们的武器，我们就都安全了。但这个理论有些实际的问题。一些挑战这个理论的专家提出：现实中真的会这样吗？这套理论不能容忍一点失误和计算错误。我不知道你们怎么想，不过这让我非常不安，要把你我的下一代的存亡作为赌注，全押在一个存在争议并且毫无容错率的理论上。让我更加不安的是，要去威胁用核武器让地球另一边 数以百万计的人全部蒸发。我们当然自己可以做得更好，运用我们的创造力去解决复杂的问题，就像我们过去一样。终究，这都是人造的。人类制造的——我不该说人（man），因为女人也参与其中——一个人类制造的问题。我们有应该可行的、更有人性的解决方案。
07:09
So, next question: "Who do you thinkshould make nuclear decisions?" Right now, in this democracy, in theUnited States, one person gets to decide whether or not to launch a nuclearstrike. They don't have to consult anybody. So that's the president. He or shecan decide -- within a very limited amount of time, under great pressure,potentially, depending on the scenario, maybe based on a miscalculation or amisunderstanding -- they can decide the fate of millions of lives: yours, mine,our community's. And they can do this and launch a nuclear strike, potentiallysetting in motion the annihilation of the human race. Wow.
所以下一个问题：“你认为谁应该决定使用核武器？”现在在我们这个民主政体，在美国，有一个人可以决定是否发动核打击。这个人不需要咨询任何人。这就是我们的总统。他或她可以在非常有限的时间内，根据不同情况，也许在巨大的压力之下，也许基于错误的计算或误解的基础上，他们可以决定数以百万计的人的命运：你的、我的以及整个社会的。总统可以这样做，发动一次核打击，很可能推动毁灭全人类的进程。哇哦。
08:09
This doesn't have to be our reality,though, and in fact, in a number of other countries that have nuclear weapons,it's not, including countries that are not democracies. We created this system.We can change it. And there's actually a movement underway to do so.
不过我们并不用接受这样的现实，实际上很多别的，拥有核武器的国家并不是这样的，包括不是民主政体的国家。我们创造这套体制，我们也可以改变它，而且有正在进行的运动在为此努力。
08:26
So this leads me to my third question:"What do your elected officials know about nuclear weapons, and what typesof decisions are they likely to take on your behalf?" Well, Congress has avery important role to play in oversight of and interrogating US nuclearweapons policy. They can decide what to fund, what not to fund, and theyrepresent you. Now unfortunately, since the end of the Cold War, we've seen areal decline in the level of understanding, on Capitol Hill, about these issues.While we are starting to see some terrific new champions emerge, the reality isthat the general lack of awareness is highly concerning, given that thesepeople need to make critically important decisions. To make matters worse, thepolitical partisanship that currently grips Washington also affects this issue.
那这就引出我的第三个问题：“你们的政府官员对核武器有多少了解，并且他们会代表你做出什么样的决定？“确实国会在其中扮演非常重要的角色，去监督和讯问美国的核武政策。他们可以决定给什么拨款，不给什么拨款，而且他们代表你们。现在很不幸的是，自冷战结束以来，我们看到的是华盛顿在这些问题上理解的程度有真真切切的下降。在我们开始见证新的优秀的政治家崭露头角的同时，现实却是这种普遍缺乏的意识，让人非常担忧，尤其是这些人要负责做出极其重要的决定。更糟糕的是，在政府内根深蒂固的党派偏见与纷争也同样对此有影响。
09:22
This wasn't always the case, though. At theend of the Cold War, members from both sides of the aisle had a really goodunderstanding about the nuclear challenges we were facing and worked togetheron cooperative programs. They recognized that nuclear risk reduction was fartoo important to allow it to succumb to political partisanship. They createdprograms such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, whichsought to lock down and eliminate vulnerable nuclear material in the formerSoviet Union. So we need to return to this era of bipartisanship, mutualproblem-solving that's based on understanding and awareness about thechallenges we face and the real nuclear dangers.
不过这并不是总是这样的。在冷战结束时，对抗的双方都具有对于我们所面对的核问题的深刻理解，并且共同进行合作项目。他们认识到核武器的削减实在太重要了，以至于政治斗争都要为它让路。他们开启了一些项目，比如《纳恩-卢格减少威胁合作计划》，该计划旨在控制与销毁前苏联不稳定的核原料。所以我们需要回到那个当年双边合作的年代，根据对于我们面对的挑战和实际核危机的意识和理解，以此来相互解决问题。
10:09
And that's where you come in. Publicpressure is important. Leaders need a constituent base to act. So create thatconstituent base, by asking them some simple questions. Ask them, "What doyou know about nuclear weapons?" "Do you have a nuclear expert onyour staff? Or, if not, do you know somebody you could refer to if you need tomake an important decision?" Start to find out what they believe andwhether it aligns with your own views and values. Ask them, "How would youchoose to spend US national treasure? On a new nuclear arms race or anothernational security priority, such as cybersecurity or climate change?" Askthem, "Are you willing to put aside partisanship to address thisexistential threat that affects my survival and your constituents'survival?"
而这就是你出场的时候。公众的压力很关键。领导人需要一群忠实的选民才会行动起来。那么为了创造这群忠实的选民，问他们一些简单的问题。问他们，“你对核武器了解多少？”“你的麾下是否有核专家？或者如果没有，你知道有谁在你要做出重大决定的时候，可以向其咨询和请教的？”开始了解他们的想法，看看是否和你自己的看法和价值观所吻合。问他们，“你会怎么去用美国的国家财富？是用在新的核武军备竞赛上，或是别的国家安全优先事项，比如网络安全或者气候变化？”问他们，“你是否愿意先将党派争斗放在一边，好好着手解决现存的、影响我和你忠实选民生命的威胁？”
11:07
Now, people will tell you nuclear policy isfar too difficult to understand and complexed and nuanced for the generalpublic to understand, let alone debate. After all, this is "nationalsecurity." There needs to be secrets. Don't let that put you off. Wedebate all sorts of issues that are critically important to our lives -- whyshould nuclear weapons be any different? We debate health care, education, theenvironment. Surely congressional oversight, civic participation that are suchhallmarks of US democracy, surely they apply here. After all, these are casesof life and death that we're talking about. And we won't all agree, but whetheror not you believe nuclear weapons keep us safe or that nuclear weapons are aliability, I urge you to put aside partisan, ideological issues and listen toeach other.
然后人们会告你，核武器政策太难理解了，对于普通大众来讲，实在太复杂有太多细节了，更不要说讨论了。毕竟，这是“国家安全”。有些事必须得是机密。但不要被这套说辞迷惑了。我们讨论各种各样对于我们生活至关重要的事情，为什么核武器就是特例？我们讨论医保、教育和环境。当然作为美国民主标志的国会监督和公民参与，这些自然都在此适用。毕竟我们谈论的事关乎生死。我们虽不会全都同意彼此，但无论你觉得核武器确保我们的安全，或者核武器只是个累赘，我想在此劝大家放下党派偏见与意识形态，好好聆听他人。
12:09
So I'll tell you now what I didn't have theguts to tell my friends at the time. No, you're not safe -- not just because ofNorth Korea. But there is something you can do about it. Demand that yourelected representatives can give you answers to your questions, and answersthat you can live with and that billions of others can live with too. And ifthey can't, stay on them until they can. And if that doesn't work, find others,who are able to represent your views. Because by doing so, we can begin tochange the answer to the question "Am I safe?"
那么我现在可以告诉你们，当初我没有胆量告诉我朋友的话。不，你并不安全——不仅仅是因为朝鲜。不过你可以尽自己的一份力，要求你们选出的议员，给出你们问题的答案，你们可以接受的以及千千万万民众们可以接受的答案。如果他们做不到，反复跟提这事直到他们做到为止。如果还是没用，找其他可以代表你们观点的人。因为只有这样做，我们才能改变这个问题的答案。“我安全吗？”
12:57
(Applause)
（掌声）
