2017考研英語《經(jīng)濟學人》閱讀：隱形的軍裝

Remarkably, the Department of Defence has no single department dedicated to researching,developing and procuring the best uniforms for all troops. This caused no problems before2002, when nearly every serviceman had a choice between a greenish camouflage uniform ora “coffee stain” desert pattern. But over the past 12 years the services have each created theirown style of camouflage. The effect has been both costly, and occasionally embarrassing.

但請注意，國防部并無專門部門負責研發(fā)和生產(chǎn)適用于全軍的服裝。在2002年之前，這不是問題，因此那時每個軍人只有兩種選擇---綠色迷彩服或者咖色沙漠迷彩。但十二年過去了，各個軍隊都設計了自己的迷彩服。這不僅帶來了浪費，有時還意味著尷尬。

The marines led the way in 2002 with a versatile and effective new combat uniform, whichalso served to boost corps morale because the marine insignia was embedded in the design.This inspired a cascade of one-upsmanship among the other services. The air force, forinstance, spent several years and more than $3m designing a new “tiger-stripe” uniform thatproved unsuitable for combat—the camouflage was ineffective, the trousers wereuncomfortable and the fabric was too heavy, leading to “heat build-up”. The navy spent a lotless money developing the “aquaflage” uniform; but that is a silly blue ensemble that worksbest where sailors may least wish to blend, in the water.

海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊在2002年率先發(fā)布了一款全能高效的新型作戰(zhàn)服，該款服飾的設計包含了海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊的隊徽，因此對鼓舞士氣也有奇效。這在全軍掀起了一股爭先浪潮。比如，空軍部隊耗時數(shù)年，斥資逾300萬美元，設計了一種新型“虎紋”制服，但這種制服卻不適合作戰(zhàn)---它的保護色無用，褲裝不舒適，布料太厚不利散熱。海軍用較少的花費，設計了所謂的“水藍”軍服(aquaflage)，這套愚蠢的藍色制服看上去只有在水中—海軍最不愿意隱藏的地方—隱藏效果最好。

The worst offender has been the army. The service spent years and about $3.2m developing itsown “universal” camouflage. This pattern was designed to work anywhere, but proveduseless nearly everywhere. Soon after it was introduced in 2005, soldiers in Iraq andAfghanistan began complaining that the pattern turned them into targets. Troops from Syriaand China were clearly better equipped. Reports suggest that a high-ranking military officialhad chosen the pattern without consulting the data from years of studies. The army is said tohave spent at least $5 billion on uniforms and equipment printed in this camouflage, which isstill in use. In an emergency measure, the army kitted out soldiers in Afghanistan in a newpattern starting in 2010, spending more than $38.8m on replacement gear in fiscal 2010and 2011.

最糟糕的設計來自陸軍。陸軍花費數(shù)年和約320萬美元設計了一種所謂的“通用”迷彩。按照設計，它本該適用所有地形，但最終發(fā)現(xiàn)，它幾乎在所有地形都派不上用場。2005年，在該種迷彩推出后不久，伊拉克和阿富汗的美國士兵就開始抱怨，說這種制服使他們成了活靶子。連敘利亞和中國的軍隊都明顯比美軍軍備精良。調查顯示，一位位居高位的軍官在沒有參考多年調查數(shù)據(jù)的情況下就選定了這種設計。據(jù)稱，陸軍至少砸了50億美元在該種制服和迷彩上印的設備上。目前，這種迷彩仍在使用中。2010年，作為應急措施之一，陸軍為駐伊拉克的士兵換上了新型樣式的服裝，據(jù)稱這個過程花費了2010、2011年的財政中的388萬美元。

Part of the problem, explains Timothy O'Neill, a retired lieutenant-colonel and camouflageexpert, is that officers can be a bit too preoccupied with a uniform's “CDI [chicks dig it] factor”.This vanity, together with bungled trials, missteps and a lack of co-operation, put the cost ofdeveloping these uniforms at more than $12m, according to a report from the GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) in 2012. This does not include the extra costs—which the GAOestimates in the tens of millions of dollars—of managing the stock and supply of so manydifferent combat uniforms. Nor does it include the high costs of replacing ineffectivecamouflage in the field. The armed forces spent around $300m on camouflage uniforms in2011 alone.

退休上校、迷彩專家蒂莫西·奧尼爾指出，問題一部分出在軍官們過于關注軍裝華而不實的效果。根據(jù)美國政府問責局(GAO)2012年的一份報告，這種虛榮心，加上被搞砸的實驗，失誤和欠缺合作，使得開發(fā)這些制服的費用超過了1200萬美元。這還不涵蓋其他額外費用(根據(jù)政府問責局估計，單單這一塊費用就數(shù)以百萬)，包括管理這些種類繁多的作戰(zhàn)服的儲存和供應。更不要提替換在戰(zhàn)場上效果不佳的迷彩服的費用了。僅僅在2011年一年，全軍花費在迷彩服上的費用就高達3億美元。

Stunned by these price tags, Congress in 2010 directed the Department of Defence to raisestandards and cut costs. But little has been done. Many soldiers see the wisdom of returning toa shared uniform. But not the marines, who will stick to their pattern “like a hobo on a hamsandwich”, in the words of General James Amos, commandant of the marine corps.

被這些價格標簽嚇到，國會在2011年令國防部提高標準，降低成本。但應對措施不多。許多士兵看到了重新開始共享同款軍服的好處。但海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊不這么想，海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊總司令、上校詹姆斯·阿莫斯說，海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊隊員對他們自己的設計就像“流浪漢對火腿三明治”。

1.depend on 依賴于

例句:Industry and agriculture depend on and supporteach other.

工業(yè)和農業(yè)是互相依賴、互相支援的。

2.dedicate to 奉獻

例句:Then you will most likely need to go to work/school, which shortens the time you can dedicate to your project.

你很可能需要上班/上學，這減少了你花費在項目上的時間。

3.lead to 導致

例句:A lack of prudence may lead to financial problems.

不夠謹慎可能會導致財政上出現(xiàn)問題。

4.according to 根據(jù)

例句:They will swap posts in a year's time, according to new party rules which rotate theleadership.

根據(jù)輪流擔任領導的新政黨章程，他們在一年后會輪換職位。

It is unclear what all this means for the army, which has been spending millions of dollarstesting different patterns for a new camouflage since 2010. It recently started tests forpossible new uniforms, which will continue until the end of September. Replacing the service'sflawed camouflage and equipment could cost another $4 billion over five years, according tothe GAO. “Research and development in government is always a long and painstakingprocess,“ says Mr O'Neill. “But if it were easy, then the government would waste even moremoney, and faster.”

這一切對全軍意味著什么，現(xiàn)在還不清楚。自2010年以來，全軍在一種新型迷彩的測試上已經(jīng)花費了上百萬資金。最近，它又對一種疑似新軍裝展開了新一輪測試，測試將一直持續(xù)到九月底。政府問責局稱，在未來五年，替換軍隊中存在缺陷的迷彩和裝備將花費400萬美元。奧尼爾說：“政府的研發(fā)過程總是路漫漫其修遠兮，但如果這個過程過于簡單，那么政府會浪費更多的資金，更加草率。”