SAT写作范文赏析：现代战争武器

>>SAT写作赏析：SAT写作范文赏析：现代战争武器

>>SAT备考辅导

新SAT写作题目：

Adapted from David Bell, in Defense of Drones: A Historical Argument

www.newrepublic.com, 1/27/2012

新SAT写作范文：

Source:

Once upon a time, American military might was symbolized by the heavy boots of the Marine Corps, stomping ashore to reestablish order in unruly parts of the world. Today, it is symbolized by unmanned drone aircraft, controlled from thousands of miles away, dropping bombs on terrorists. Drone use aims to cut troops, ships and planes while concentrating our military energies on spy technology, cyber warfare, jammers, and special operations forces.

The embrace of technology over traditional methods of combat has provoked critics who doubt the morality and political implications of 'remote control warfare'. Norte Dame law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, argues that 'to accept killing far from battlefields where there is an understanding of necessity is ethically troubling.' 'The Economist' similarly asked: 'if war can be waged by one side without risk to the life and limb of its combatants, has a vital form of restraint been removed?'

Other critics tend to present this new frontier of warfare as something largely novel--one that radically changed the political dynamics of warfare. But if our current technology is new, the desire to take out one's enemies from a safe distance is anything but. From the beginnings of warfare, combatants have sought technological advantages of allowing them to kill enemies with minimum risk to themselves. And, these advances have always provoked criticism. We don't know if anyone excoriated the inventor of the bow and arrow as a dishonorable coward who refused to risk death in a hand to hand fight. Not surprisingly, after gunpowder weapons appeared, critics unloosed torrents of chivalric outrage. As late as the 1500's, the Italian poet Ariosto raged at this 'wicked and terrible discovery' which had 'destroyed martial glory and reduced valor and virtue to nought.'

Over the centuries, advances in military technology added to the anonymity of killing. By 1918, the Germans had developed guns that could fire 200 pound shells a distance of 80 miles, over a trajectory that took them to an altitude of over 130,000 feet. This and other developments provoked criticism similar to that now heard against drone warfare.

It is crucial to note that since 1975 the sort of mass warfare characterized by anonymous killing and massive conscript armies has been quite strikingly reversed. Except from two campaigns in Iraq, the U.S. has largely fought against irregular, insurgent forces and terrorists, and actual combat has mostly taken place at much closer range than it did for the average infantryman of either world war. This development ought to console critics who worry about the moral and political implications of anonymous, long-distance killing: Soldiers remaining on the battlefield-- and none more than the special operations forces that the administration relies on so heavily--are more likely to see their enemies up close than their grandfathers did, and to run very great risks indeed.

Of course, drone warfare aims to safeguard American lives and also put a premium on other lives for very practical, political reasons. The critics of drone warfare argue that without Americans running the risk of death, a vital restraint up one murderously aggressive military action will disappear, and countless innocent civilians will die. But in combating insurgents and terrorists, an actions' political effects matter just as much, if not more, than their purely military ones, and high civilian death tolls are not just moral outrageous, but political disasters.

What the history of war makes clear is that 'remote control warfare' does not signal an abolition of restraints on war's destructive power. Using technology to strike safely at an opponent is as old as war itself. It has been seen in eras of highly-controlled and restrained warfare, and in eras of unrestrained total war-- and the present day, thankfully, belongs to the first category. Ultimately, restraints upon war are more a matter of politics than of technology. If you are concerned about American aggression, it is not the drones you should fear, but the politicians who order them into battle.

中文范文翻译练习

在开头，David Bell描述了战争进行方式的变化。他用对比的象征手法戏剧化的展现了这个变化。这场老式的战争，他用了'传统战斗方式'的标签，被呈现为海军的'重靴子' '践踏了海岸。。。' 这种形象可能会激起一种'合作'感，来自于好战主义者，和战争片的爱好者。这种新的风格象征是非人性化的技术被描述为'无人驾驶机，操控于千里之外'和'网络战争'和'干扰发射台'。 这些象征可能反应出Bell对于传统战争的偏见。他不支持士兵应该在战地面对面，但是他声称当战斗涉及到真实的人在以生命冒险，一个'对于谋杀性的激烈的军事行动的重要限制'是必要的。

在这样的前提下Bell声称对于'重要限制'的需求是落后于很多批判对于无人战争的否定。作为证据，Bell引用了'经济学人'提出的问题--科技已经消除了'一个重要限制'吗?Bell并不认可。他知道无人战争是新的。但是他也声称说着不是全新的，而且他支持这个说法通过给出其他发明的历史证据，这些发明已经让战斗者无需用自己的生命冒险来杀死敌人比如弓箭火药，Bell认为这些可以导致和无人机引起的同样的批判。位了强调这一点，Bell引用了Ariosto ，一个16世纪诗人，他对于一些'邪恶可怕的发现。。。毁灭了武术的荣耀战斗的英勇和美德'表示愤怒。进一步说明他的观点无人机的批判是错误的，Bell说自从1975年无名战争已经减少了。他再次使用历史事件来支撑自己的观点，说美国对于恐怖主义的战争已经发生'对于步兵来说要走的路比以前两次世界大战要少的多。'而且他还对于论点加了情感重拳，提到我们的'先辈'要打反击战。

Bell还想要证明的一点是对于无人机的批判是过度担忧有关于无人战争的道德意义。作为该批判的证据，他引用一位圣母法教授的话：远程控制的战争是'道德有问题'的。他同意杀掉平民是道德败坏，而且也是'政治灾难'。基于他的说法'一次政治行动的意义不低于一次军事行动'。Bell的理由是'军事使用无人机不代表消除限制，关于对地方领土和人民实施致命的摧毁。'

这个说法导致他对于早先出现在文中批判者的反对给出了回答。通过使用来自于战争长期历史的例子，从弓箭到德国人使用枪可以发射80英里射程，他声称每一个新的武器导致批判说科技废除了对于摧毁一切的限制。这个说法直接带来了本文的结论，Bell告诉读者如果热门过于带有灭国的侵略性，并不是无人机的错而是决定使用她们的政治家的错。

上面的范文大家都认真看过了吧，是不是很羡慕别人写出来的文章呢！其实如果多看多练习你也可以的！了解更多SAT考试内容可以登录坦途网SAT考试频道，小编与你不见不散。