美國如果退出北約并將所有資金帶回美國，將節(jié)省多少錢？

Claire Jordan
A tiny amount that it spends on NATO admin. That’s it.

它用于北約管理的微量支出。就是這樣。

Countries don’t spend money on NATO. They spend money on their own militaries, then NATO members pledge to use those militaries to help each other if attacked. So other than the admin, cost, NATO costs nothing unless you are actually called on to help another member.

各國并不為北約直接花費(fèi)資金。他們投資于自己的軍隊(duì)，而北約成員國則承諾在受到攻擊時(shí)使用這些軍隊(duì)相互支援。因此，除了行政費(fèi)用外，北約實(shí)際上不花費(fèi)任何資金，除非你真的被要求去幫助另一個(gè)成員國。

So far, the only NATO member which has asked for or received NATO’s help is the US, so other NATO countries have spent money helping the US.

到目前為止，唯一請(qǐng)求或接受北約幫助的北約成員國是美國，因此其他北約國家花費(fèi)資金幫助美國。

Marcus Lasance
I don’t think pulling out of NATO will produce any savings for the USA, quite the opposite.

我認(rèn)為美國退出北約不會(huì)帶來任何節(jié)省，恰恰相反。

NATO members voluntarily agree to spend x percentage on defence. The fact that USA regularly exceeds that amount, doesn’t mean pulling out of NATO results in savings automatically.

北約成員國自愿同意將一定比例的支出用于國防。美國經(jīng)常超出這一比例的事實(shí)，并不意味著退出北約會(huì)自動(dòng)帶來節(jié)省。

In fact many NATO members spend a lot of their defence budget participating in the development costs of the lates US weapon systems, making the per unit cost for American military lower.

事實(shí)上，許多北約成員國花費(fèi)了大量國防預(yù)算參與最新美國武器系統(tǒng)的開發(fā)成本，這使得美國軍事設(shè)備的單位成本降低。

What we see with the Orange Urangutang in charge and his hillbilly sidekick, is that the US today is seen as an unreliable ally.

我們看到，在橘子猩猩掌權(quán)和他的鄉(xiāng)巴佬副手的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，今天的美國被視為一個(gè)不可靠的盟友。

Hence Europeans are shifting away from buying over complex expensive US defence systems to buying home produced systems under their own control.

因此，歐洲人正在從購買過于復(fù)雜且昂貴的美國防御系統(tǒng)轉(zhuǎn)向購買他們自己控制的本土生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)。

Just look at the stock prices of a US defence contractor and a German+ Swedish one side by side.

只需將一家美國國防承包商和一家德國+瑞典的國防承包商的股票價(jià)格并排看一下。

Michael Blucher
First, to pull out of NATO requires a supermajority in both houses and neither party has the numbers. So that is NOT going to happen.

首先，退出北約需要在兩院中獲得絕對(duì)多數(shù)票，而目前沒有任何一個(gè)黨派擁有這樣的票數(shù)。因此，這種情況不會(huì)發(fā)生。

Next, ALL NATO countries pay for their own Armed Forces and Defense, so there are no savings for the USA there, unless the US cuts back on its own defense spending.

接下來，所有北約國家都為自己的武裝力量和國防支付費(fèi)用，因此除非美國削減自己的國防開支，否則美國在這方面不會(huì)有任何節(jié)省。

Then of course there is the NATO Administration budget, of which the US pays the same amount as Germany.

當(dāng)然還有北約管理預(yù)算，美國支付與德國相同的金額。

That was 15.8813% of $3.3 billion USD for 2024.

那是在2024年占33億美元中的15.8813%。

So the USA might save $524 million USD.

因此，美國可能節(jié)省5.24億美元。

Peanuts compared to the total US budgetary expenditure.

與美國總預(yù)算支出相比，微不足道。

Barry McGuinness
About half of the amount that the US mysteriously overspends on what the DoD’s accountants call “excess parts and supplies” each year. Literally.

美國每年神秘地超支了大約一半的金額，而這些超支被國防部的會(huì)計(jì)們稱為“多余的零件和補(bǔ)給”。

Look, the US doesn’t pay for a “NATO force”, if that’s what you’re thinking. There’s no such thing.

看吧，美國并沒有為‘北約軍隊(duì)’買單，如果你是這樣想的。實(shí)際上根本沒有這樣的東西。

Each member country simply pays for its own forces which are primarily for its own defence, just as it would if NATO never existed.

每個(gè)成員國只需支付其自身軍隊(duì)的費(fèi)用，這些軍隊(duì)主要用于自身防御，就像北約從未存在過一樣。

But each member country has also agreed to provide some of its own forces to make up a multinational NATO force, if and when called to do so by another NATO member country that has been attacked.

但每個(gè)成員國也同意，在另一個(gè)受到攻擊的北約成員國召喚時(shí)，提供部分自己的部隊(duì)組成多國北約部隊(duì)。

And in NATO’s entire history, that’s only ever happened once so far — when the US called for NATO to help following the 9/11 attacks.

在北約的整個(gè)歷史中，到目前為止這種情況只發(fā)生過一次——那就是美國在9/11襲擊后請(qǐng)求北約提供援助。

Individual NATO member countries do agree to pay for the organisation’s administrative costs, which amount to something like $4 bn per year. The cost share of that is relative to national income. The US and Germany each pay about 16%, or $500 million, per year.

北約各成員國確實(shí)同意支付該組織的行政費(fèi)用，每年大約為40億美元。這筆費(fèi)用的分?jǐn)偙壤c各國的國民收入相關(guān)。美國和德國每年各支付約16%，即5億美元。

But that half billion is peanuts compared to the overall US military budget: $850 BILLION. If you just want to save money, you could start by tightening up on those “excess parts and supplies”.

但那500億與美國的整體軍事預(yù)算相比只是九牛一毛：8500億美元。如果你只是想省錢，可以從收緊那些“多余的零件和物資”開始。

Kevin Kennedy
It would save the (relatively ) small amount that the US pays towards the NATO administration budget (same amount as Germany - a little more than France, the UK and then the others pay on a sliding scale)

這將節(jié)省美國支付的相對(duì)較少的北約管理預(yù)算（與德國相同 - 比法國和英國略多，其他國家則按比例遞減）

On a per capita basis the US pays a lot less than most others actually.

按人均計(jì)算，美國實(shí)際上支付的費(fèi)用比大多數(shù)其他國家要少得多。

It would COST the US many times more with the removal of all it’s bases from NATO countries - which it does not pay for, and the repatriation of all it’s troops plus equipment.

如果美國從北約國家撤出所有基地——這些基地并不由美國支付費(fèi)用——并遣返所有軍隊(duì)及設(shè)備，這將使美國付出數(shù)倍于現(xiàn)在的代價(jià)。

There would also be the huge losses to the us arms industries as the other NATO countries seek supply from their own ramped up arms manufacturers instead of buying US weapons . Many European armaments and aircraft are more cost effective than the hugely expensive (to purchase and maintain ) US equivalents.

如果其他北約國家從本國已經(jīng)擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)的軍火制造商那里尋求供應(yīng)，而不是購買美國武器，美國軍火工業(yè)也將面臨巨大損失。許多歐洲的軍備和飛機(jī)在采購和維護(hù)成本上比美國同等產(chǎn)品更具成本效益。

There would also be a stronger , new rival on the world arms market to consider, btw.

此外，還需要考慮世界軍火市場上出現(xiàn)的一個(gè)更強(qiáng)大的新競爭對(duì)手。

It is more than possible , likely even, that the current POTUS cannot comprehend this, especially given his complete lack of business acumen as demonstrated to date. Therefore it is just as well that the wiser heads in congress and the senate would not, in all likelihood, accept such a move.

現(xiàn)任美國總統(tǒng)很可能無法理解這一點(diǎn)，尤其是考慮到他迄今為止表現(xiàn)出的完全缺乏商業(yè)頭腦的情況。因此，國會(huì)和參議院中更明智的頭腦極有可能不會(huì)接受這樣的行動(dòng)，這也是好事。

Reluctant Witness

不情愿的證人

Trillions! Without being in NATO, there is no reason to be in Europe, so then no reason to have bases in Europe, so all that expensive equipment can be shipped home by expensive cargo planes and ships. All those highly trained and aggressive warriors can come home to unemployment and boredom (oh oh). Not needing to support bases any more, you don't need such a formidable navy, so you can retire , or better, sell off entire carrier strike groups. Then naturally without such a navy, you don't need deep sea ports. The savings keep pouring in! However you do now have highly trained, aggressive and unemployed sailors running around meeting their army counterparts. Not forgetting the really expensive air force that no longer has places to land, just bomb, well they can be downsized too. All those trained, idealistic unemployed warriors wondering what went wrong, looking for answers, looking at Trump. Beautiful.

數(shù)萬億美元！如果不加入北約，就沒有理由留在歐洲，因此也沒有理由在歐洲設(shè)立基地，那么所有那些昂貴的裝備都可以通過昂貴的貨機(jī)和船只運(yùn)回國內(nèi)。所有那些訓(xùn)練有素、充滿攻擊性的戰(zhàn)士都可以回到家里，面對(duì)失業(yè)和無聊（哦哦）。不再需要支持基地，你就不需要如此強(qiáng)大的海軍，因此你可以退役，或者更好的是，出售整個(gè)航母打擊群。然后，自然沒有了這樣的海軍，你就不需要深水港口。節(jié)省下來的錢源源不斷！然而，你現(xiàn)在有一群訓(xùn)練有素、充滿攻擊性且失業(yè)的水手四處游蕩，與他們的陸軍同行會(huì)面。別忘了那些非常昂貴的空軍，他們不再有地方降落，只能轟炸，他們也可以被縮減。所有那些受過訓(xùn)練、理想主義且失業(yè)的戰(zhàn)士們?cè)谙肽睦锍隽藛栴}，尋找答案，看著特朗普。美妙。

Christian Wartner
Do you think the US will spend one dollar less on the military if it pulls out of NATO? The US increases its military budget yearly and will continue.

你認(rèn)為如果美國退出北約，它會(huì)在軍事上少花一美元嗎？美國每年都在增加軍費(fèi)預(yù)算，并將繼續(xù)這樣做。

Trump paints a completely stupid picture of NATO. He puts a price tag on things the US does anyway. The US controls NATO. It does not cost money. NATO ensures military contracts with US weapons manufactures and is highly profitable. On the other hand NATO never fought a war to defend Europe or whatever Trump claims. The only NATO operations in the last 20 years were very US focused: Afghanistan was the biggest. It saved the US billions to have NATO partners in this war that was rather unnecessary for other NATO members. Another war was Libya. Same as Afghanistan. The only useful operations are some anti piracy actions in Somalia. They serve the US as much as other members. Using air ports/basis in NATO member counties saves he US a lot of money in its middle east meddling as well.

特朗普對(duì)北約的描述非常愚蠢。他為美國本來就在做的事情標(biāo)上了價(jià)格。美國控制著北約，這并不需要花費(fèi)金錢。北約確保了與美國武器制造商的軍事合同，并且利潤豐厚。另一方面，北約從未為保衛(wèi)歐洲或特朗普所聲稱的任何事情而打過仗。過去20年中，北約的唯一行動(dòng)都非常以美國為中心：阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭是最大的一個(gè)。讓北約伙伴參與這場對(duì)其他北約成員來說不必要的戰(zhàn)爭，為美國節(jié)省了數(shù)十億美元。另一場戰(zhàn)爭是利比亞，情況與阿富汗相似。唯一有用的行動(dòng)是在索馬里的一些反海盜行動(dòng)。它們對(duì)美國和其他成員國同樣有利。使用北約成員國的機(jī)場/基地也為美國在中東的干預(yù)省下了很多錢。

What do you think NATO does hat benefits only other members an would save the US money?

你認(rèn)為北約的哪些行為只對(duì)其他成員國有利，并且能為美國節(jié)省開支？

Steven Wolk
Theoretically we would save about $800 million (our defense budget is over $900 billion) which is our portion of the administrative costs. But then we would spend a lot to make sure we are communicating and working with our allies, so the savings wouldn't really be that high.

理論上，我們可以節(jié)省大約8億美元（我們的國防預(yù)算超過9000億美元），這是我們分擔(dān)的行政費(fèi)用部分。但隨后我們會(huì)花費(fèi)大量資金確保與盟友的溝通和合作，因此實(shí)際節(jié)省的金額并不會(huì)那么高。

What is NATO best for? Stopping wars before they start. Wars cost us all money, even if we're not direct participants. You know why Russia hasn't attacked Poland or one of their former constituent states? NATO. Know why they attacked Ukraine? Because they weren't part of NATO, so Putin figures why not? Know why Russia doesn’t dare attack the newest NATO members, Finland and Sweden? Yup, you guessed it.

北約最擅長什么？在戰(zhàn)爭開始之前阻止它們。戰(zhàn)爭讓我們所有人都付出代價(jià)，即使我們沒有直接參與。你知道為什么俄羅斯沒有攻擊波蘭或其前成員國之一嗎？因?yàn)楸奔s。你知道為什么他們攻擊烏克蘭嗎？因?yàn)闉蹩颂m不是北約的一部分，所以普京覺得為什么不呢？你知道為什么俄羅斯不敢攻擊最新的北約成員國芬蘭和瑞典嗎？沒錯(cuò)，你猜對(duì)了。

Saving money is great. Saving money in the short-term and then spending multiples more in the long-term is foolish and short-sighted.

省錢是很好的。在短期內(nèi)省錢，然后在長期內(nèi)花費(fèi)多倍的錢是愚蠢和短視的。

Daniel Needham
The useless states, will save a little money, the money it puts into the running of NATO.

那些無用的國家將節(jié)省一點(diǎn)錢，這些錢將用于北約的運(yùn)作。

BUT they will lose far more than they save, they will have to pay to repatriate the 100000, military personel that would be returning andcto ship back and store all of the associated equipment. Then there is the billions of dollars worth of military contracts they will lose as Europe starts to spend on it’s own defence industries.

但他們的損失將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過節(jié)省的開支，他們將不得不支付遣返10萬名軍事人員的費(fèi)用，以及運(yùn)回和存儲(chǔ)所有相關(guān)設(shè)備的費(fèi)用。然后，他們還將失去價(jià)值數(shù)十億美元的軍事合同，因?yàn)闅W洲開始投資于自己的國防工業(yè)。

Then there’s the lost ability to project power, you can’t opperate B-52’s or C-17’s of aircraft carriers, so good luck with projecting power into the middle east. You also lose Assension Island, so access to Africa suddenly gets harder. Diego Garcia also goes so the US will struggle to supply it’s forces in the Indian Ocean and the North Arabian Sea.

接著是失去投射力量的能力，你無法在航空母艦上操作B-52或C-17飛機(jī)，所以祝你好運(yùn)在中東投射力量。你還失去了阿森松島，因此進(jìn)入非洲的通道突然變得更加困難。迭戈加西亞也失去了，因此美國在印度洋和北阿拉伯海的補(bǔ)給將變得困難。

Suddenly the US becomes a third rate state with far more military than it needs

突然間，美國變成了一個(gè)三等國家，擁有遠(yuǎn)超其需要的軍事力量

1.5K views

1.5萬次觀看

View 2 upvotes

查看2個(gè)贊同

Bradley Seefried
Not much but the benefits of you leaving would be huge and would be welcome for the world. The yanks are not really the best team in town, they think they are but they are not. I’m sure you could save money and I know that’s really the most important thing to a Yankee is his money. The rest of nato would be better off and we could ask Ukraine to join. We don’t need yanks and we should happily let them go.

不多，但你離開的好處將是巨大的，并且會(huì)受到世界的歡迎。美國佬并不是城里最好的團(tuán)隊(duì)，他們自以為是，但事實(shí)并非如此。我確信你可以省錢，而且我知道那對(duì)一個(gè)美國佬來說是最重要的事情。北約的其他成員會(huì)更好，我們可以邀請(qǐng)烏克蘭加入。我們不需要美國佬，我們應(yīng)該欣然讓他們離開。

How many more towers, shopping malls, Centers of historic importance and vulnerable military sites, ports, transport infrastructure and energy distribution have you got. The US should consider those values alongside money saved.

你還有多少更多的高樓、購物中心、歷史重要中心、脆弱的軍事地點(diǎn)、港口、交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和能源分配設(shè)施。美國應(yīng)該將這些價(jià)值與節(jié)省的金錢一起考慮。

This is a realistic assessment that needs to be made because the vast number of treaties, agreements and promises made throughout ‘recent’ history and throughout the world will leave so much resentment and ill will that your enemies ( and you do have them) will have more room to do their work without the close eye of your allies supporting your interests.

這是一個(gè)需要進(jìn)行的現(xiàn)實(shí)評(píng)估，因?yàn)樵凇瘹v史和世界各地簽訂的眾多條約、協(xié)議和承諾將留下如此多的怨恨和敵意，以至于你的敵人（你確實(shí)有敵人）將會(huì)有更多的空間去做他們的工作，而你的盟友則不會(huì)那么緊密地關(guān)注和支持你的利益。

Literally the global de-stabilisation will be at your front door once again. There had often been an understanding to ‘ fight them over there’ rather than ‘over here.’ Should you wish to continue this new and short sighted policy we’ll look forward to telling you we told you so.

全球的不穩(wěn)定確實(shí)會(huì)再次出現(xiàn)在你的家門口。過去常常有一種共識(shí)，即‘在那里與他們戰(zhàn)斗’而不是‘在這里’。如果你希望繼續(xù)這種短視的新政策，我們期待告訴你我們?cè)缇驼f過了。

As for ‘ all that money’ - Your welcome to keep it. The US dollar is not the only stable currency in town - though it is the biggest in volume. With closing up of EU tradings, development of a genuine BRICS trade pact and closer ties in Asian/Australian markets, the current trade and tariff wars that you alone started - The US will have increased difficulty in global trade from a weakened position . But don’t let us tell you we told you so. No really don’t let us. WE preferred a time of free trade (relatively) and exchange. If you shit on that then you can shovel it up from your own shores. In the words of your Vice President, This European freeloader is sick of your dumb ass threats to sovereign countries, friends and allies and would be happy to see your freeloading sites removed from our land. It’s not your money or your military prowess- it’s the attitude and insults that stick in our throats. The behaviour is akin to the opening rounds of a acrimonious divorce .

至于‘所有那些錢’——你盡管留著吧。美元并不是唯一穩(wěn)定的貨幣——盡管它的交易量最大。隨著歐盟貿(mào)易的關(guān)閉、真正的金磚國家貿(mào)易協(xié)定的發(fā)展以及亞洲/澳大利亞市場的緊密聯(lián)系，你獨(dú)自發(fā)起的當(dāng)前貿(mào)易和關(guān)稅戰(zhàn)爭——美國將在全球貿(mào)易中從一個(gè)弱勢地位面臨更大的困難。但別讓我們告訴你我們?cè)缇驼f過。不，真的別讓我們說。我們更喜歡一個(gè)（相對(duì)）自由貿(mào)易和交流的時(shí)代。如果你破壞了這一點(diǎn)，那么你可以從你自己的海岸上清理它。用你們副總統(tǒng)的話來說，這個(gè)歐洲的搭便車者已經(jīng)受夠了你們對(duì)主權(quán)國家、朋友和盟友的愚蠢威脅，并很高興看到你們搭便車的站點(diǎn)從我們的土地上移除。不是你的錢或你的軍事實(shí)力——而是態(tài)度和侮辱讓我們難以接受。這種行為就像是一場激烈離婚的開場。

I apologise to my usual viewers, this is probably my most scathing response to date. I normally look for the pragmatic and reasoned position but this question is the most ill thought and selfishly arrogant dumb ass POS I’ve read in a while. Fortunately I’m not a world leader so figure my opinion is a drop in the ocean, that apparently is neither wide enough or deep enough to satisfy european isolation - or the US . A country where the Rats are running the ship, the world looks forward to seeing them leave the ship . MAGA - the biggest bullshit since the purity of the aryan race - a pseudoscientific category that never existed in the first place. BY all means, withdraw and bring your armies home. You’ll need them ! If only to maintain order on the streets from your own civilians . Whilst your at it you can reduce the whole military forces and replace then with unpaid conscxts. Much cheaper ! You won't need all those global intelligence agency's and can massively reduce it to just within the country, more money saved. Have you considered reintroducing forced labour for all those massive numbers of immigrants and non-white, clearly not ‘real americans’ - It was very successful in the south before 17 whatever it was . I’m sure ‘ The South’ can help you organise that. ‘Caus gettinorganised’ is what they do well.

我向我的?？蛡兊狼福@可能是我迄今為止最尖銳的回應(yīng)。我通常尋找務(wù)實(shí)和理性的立場，但這個(gè)問題是我最近讀過的最欠考慮、最自私自大的愚蠢至極的東西。幸運(yùn)的是，我不是世界領(lǐng)袖，所以我的意見不過是滄海一粟，顯然這海既不夠?qū)捯膊粔蛏?，無法滿足歐洲的孤立——或美國。這個(gè)國家里，老鼠在掌舵，世界期待著看到他們離開這艘船。MAGA——自雅利安種族純潔以來最大的謊言——一個(gè)從未存在過的偽科學(xué)類別。無論如何，撤軍并把你們的軍隊(duì)帶回家吧。你們會(huì)需要他們的！哪怕只是為了維持街道秩序，防止你們自己的平民鬧事。與此同時(shí)，你們可以削減整個(gè)軍事力量，用無薪的應(yīng)征者取而代之。更便宜！你們不需要所有那些全球情報(bào)機(jī)構(gòu)，可以大幅縮減到僅在國內(nèi)，省下更多錢。你們有沒有考慮過為所有那些大量的移民和非白人重新引入強(qiáng)制勞動(dòng)——他們顯然不是‘真正的美國人’——在17世紀(jì)之前的南方非常成功。我相信‘南方’可以幫助你們組織這個(gè)。因?yàn)椤M織起來’是他們擅長的事情。

Regards

此致

Vlad Constantinescu
None. They will bring less money back than today.

沒有。他們帶回的錢會(huì)比今天少。

Is far cheaper for the US to keep its troops in Europe instead of US, as a part of the costs are paid by the host countries.

美國將其部隊(duì)留在歐洲而非美國本土，這要便宜得多，因?yàn)椴糠仲M(fèi)用由東道國承擔(dān)。

You have to add also the influence backed by those troops. Using this influence, the Europeans are convinced to buy billions dollar worth American weapons. And not only weapons, but a lot of other expensive contracts are signed with the US companies by the European governments. Which means a lot of jobs back in the US.

你還必須加上這些部隊(duì)所支持的影響力。利用這種影響力，歐洲人被說服購買價(jià)值數(shù)十億美元的美國武器。不僅僅是武器，歐洲政府還與美國公司簽署了許多其他昂貴的合同。這意味著美國本土?xí)泻芏嗑蜆I(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。

The fact that Europe defence is so based on the US military is a great achievement for the US. Some in the US have to be really stupid to change this, specially now when the US army in Europe remained the only positive American image here. The US politics and democracy went into a strange direction by the European standards.

歐洲的防務(wù)如此依賴美軍，這對(duì)美國來說是一項(xiàng)巨大成就。美國有些人如果真的想要改變這一點(diǎn)，那就真是愚蠢至極，尤其是現(xiàn)在，美軍在歐洲仍是唯一的正面美國形象。按照歐洲的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，美國的政治和民主已經(jīng)走向了一個(gè)奇怪的方向。

The problem for Trump now is how to make peace with Russia (to focus on China) but keep the Europe against Russia to increase the European military spendings (aka buying more US weapons).

特朗普現(xiàn)在的問題是，如何與俄羅斯和解（以便專注于中國），但同時(shí)保持歐洲與俄羅斯的對(duì)立，以增加歐洲的軍事開支（即購買更多美國武器）。

Brian Rauchfuss
The U.S. spends about 0.06% of its defense budget on NATO. NATO itself costs the U.S. almost nothing, and if the US pulls out it will lose access to military bases across Europe - or European countries will charge the U.S. a lot to have them.

美國將其國防預(yù)算的約0.06%用于北約。北約本身幾乎不花費(fèi)美國什么，如果美國退出，它將失去在歐洲各地的軍事基地的使用權(quán)——或者歐洲國家會(huì)向美國收取高額費(fèi)用來保留這些基地。

The arguments about if other countries are spending enough on NATO refers to if they are spending enough on their own military compared to the US’s huge military budget.

關(guān)于其他國家是否在北約上花費(fèi)足夠的爭論，指的是與美國龐大的軍事預(yù)算相比，他們是否在自己的軍事上花費(fèi)足夠。

Pulling out of NATO would only mean that the U.S. would need to spend even more on its military, or give up being a superpower. A critical prerequisite for being a superpower is global reach, and military bases around the globe are needed to have that.

退出北約只會(huì)意味著美國需要在軍事上花費(fèi)更多，或者放棄成為超級(jí)大國。成為超級(jí)大國的關(guān)鍵前提是全球影響力，而要實(shí)現(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)，就需要在全球范圍內(nèi)建立軍事基地。

Nick Pirie
None. Zero. NATO membership requires 2% of GDP is spent on defence. America do that anyway. The only way they would save money by not being in NATO is to withdraw and cut back on their defence spending and reduce their armed forces. If America was not in NATO its possible and likley that some NATO countries would look to develop and invest in NATO country weapons rather than by from US owned ones. As such this would actually hurt the US economy. It makes sense to cross train on the same weapon platforms. If America is not in NATO it would make sense to invest in technology of those that ARE.

無。零。北約成員國要求將GDP的2%用于國防。美國無論如何都會(huì)這么做。他們不加入北約唯一能省錢的方式是退出并削減國防開支，減少武裝力量。如果美國不在北約，一些北約國家可能會(huì)考慮開發(fā)和投資北約國家的武器，而不是購買美國擁有的武器。因此，這實(shí)際上會(huì)損害美國經(jīng)濟(jì)。在同一武器平臺(tái)上進(jìn)行交叉訓(xùn)練是有意義的。如果美國不在北約，投資那些北約成員國的技術(shù)是有意義的。

I do wonder why there have been a few of these questiosn today when putin launches his (essentially unopposed) reelection procession , and when trump (anti NATO) is gearing up for another attempt to ruin America ….i`m sure its just a coincidence …

我確實(shí)想知道，當(dāng)普京（基本上無人反對(duì)）啟動(dòng)他的連任競選活動(dòng)，以及當(dāng)特朗普（反北約）準(zhǔn)備再次嘗試毀掉美國時(shí)，為什么今天會(huì)有這么多這樣的問題……我確信這只是一個(gè)巧合……

Andy
Well as ever the devil's in the detail .

就像往常一樣，細(xì)節(jié)決定成敗。

So pull out of NATO and we'll say close any bases , troops and equipment back to the US .

所以退出北約，我們將關(guān)閉所有基地，并將部隊(duì)和裝備撤回美國。

We won't look at any loss of capabilities just possible $$$ savings .

我們不會(huì)考慮任何能力損失，只會(huì)考慮可能的成本節(jié)約。

Do you intend to retain these troops or discharge them 

你打算保留這些部隊(duì)還是解散他們？

Retain - then you're still paying for them and the additional bases / quarters within the US , minimal savings but retaining (some) capability .

保留 - 那么你仍然需要為它們以及在美國境內(nèi)的額外基地/營區(qū)支付費(fèi)用，節(jié)省有限但保留（部分）能力。

Discharge - well you're now saving on the wage bill although you've got decreased tax base and possible increased social benefits to pay out whilst they look for other work 

解雇——雖然你現(xiàn)在節(jié)省了工資支出，但你的稅基減少了，而且在他們尋找其他工作期間，可能需要支付增加的社會(huì)福利。

2 , Downsize the armed forces, well if you're discharging ( blocking re-enlistment ) reducing numbers ,training budget & wage bill should certainly decrease . Again with the oss to tax base and social benefits and extra bodies in the workplace though .

2、裁減軍隊(duì)，如果你正在解雇（阻止再次入伍），減少人數(shù)，訓(xùn)練預(yù)算和工資賬單肯定會(huì)減少。不過，這也涉及到稅基和社會(huì)福利以及工作場所的額外人員。

3, If downsizing are we looking at bases as well as troop numbers ? If so you're saving on possible maintenance & upkeep , energy costs, so yes some savings possible . OFC then you get the hit to the local economy , , shops ,bars probably a few civilian jobs who were previously employed on base .

3. 如果進(jìn)行規(guī)?？s減，我們是否也在考慮基地以及軍隊(duì)人數(shù)？如果考慮的話，你可以在可能的維護(hù)和保養(yǎng)、能源成本上節(jié)省開支，所以是的，有一些節(jié)省是可能的。當(dāng)然，然后你會(huì)對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)亟?jīng)濟(jì)、商店、酒吧以及之前在基地受雇的一些平民工作造成沖擊。

Equipment , will you need so many aircraft , armour ,weapon systems ? That would be a saving . Altho the American arms industry won't like that , possible job impacts again.

裝備方面，你需要這么多飛機(jī)、裝甲車和武器系統(tǒng)嗎？那樣會(huì)節(jié)省一些。盡管美國的軍火工業(yè)可能不會(huì)喜歡這樣，可能會(huì)再次影響到就業(yè)。

The state representatives unlikely to be happy now , arms industry are major donors ( and employers, note how I listed the jobs as the 2nd most important)

州代表們現(xiàn)在不太可能高興，軍火工業(yè)是主要的捐助者（同時(shí)也是雇主，請(qǐng)注意我是如何將工作列為第二重要的）。

John Pryor
A small amount estimates vary from $500–800 million. The US defence budget covers the entire globe & because of NATO they don’t need to spend much to cover Europe. They would loose far more like intelligence sharing & weapon sales by withdrawing & would still likely want a presence so they can project power globally.

估計(jì)的少量金額在5億至8億美元之間。美國的國防預(yù)算覆蓋全球，而且因?yàn)橛斜奔s，他們不需要花太多錢來覆蓋歐洲。如果撤出，他們會(huì)失去更多，比如情報(bào)共享和武器銷售，而且他們可能仍然希望保留存在，以便在全球范圍內(nèi)投射力量。

The US is in Europe for a reason it’s the only NATO country to date that has invoked article 5 asking for support from NATO members. It also uses NATO countries for transfer operations such as fighters & as a base to launch operations from, airstrikes against Libya & during the Gulf War come to mind.

美國在歐洲有其原因，它是迄今為止唯一一個(gè)援引北約第五條要求北約成員國提供支持的國家。它還利用北約國家進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)移行動(dòng)，如戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)，并作為發(fā)動(dòng)行動(dòng)的基地，例如對(duì)利比亞的空襲和在海灣戰(zhàn)爭期間的行動(dòng)。

The US military want NATO it’s a base of operations & listening post just like Japan or North Korea without it their capabilities are greatly reduced in the surrounding are including North Africa & the Middle East.

美國軍方希望北約成為其行動(dòng)基地和監(jiān)聽站，就像日本或朝鮮一樣，沒有它，他們?cè)诎ū狈呛椭袞|在內(nèi)的周邊地區(qū)的能力將大大降低。

So far cost wise the US has done well as the only country to ask others to go to war on its behalf.

到目前為止，美國在成本方面做得很好，因?yàn)樗俏ㄒ灰粋€(gè)要求其他國家代表其參戰(zhàn)的國家。

Michael Munson
It would be a huge net loss.

這將是一個(gè)巨大的凈損失。

All of the weapons systems that the US manages to sell to NATO members would get replaced with non-US equivalents.

美國設(shè)法出售給北約成員國的所有武器系統(tǒng)都將被非美國等效產(chǎn)品所取代。

The US would still have to pay all the American military people who perform NATO duties, at least at first.

美國仍然需要支付所有執(zhí)行北約職責(zé)的美國軍人的薪酬，至少在最初階段。

The US would lose even more intelligence gathering costs (they are already losing many of those due to the tariff wars against allies) than they are now, and would therefore either begin losing even MORE “spy wars” than they are now.

美國將比現(xiàn)在損失更多的情報(bào)收集成本（由于對(duì)盟友的關(guān)稅戰(zhàn)爭，他們已經(jīng)損失了許多），因此要么開始比現(xiàn)在失去更多的“間諜戰(zhàn)爭”。

Finally, the US doesn’t pay NATO “dues.” Because there aren’t any.

最后，美國并不向北約支付“會(huì)費(fèi)”。因?yàn)闆]有這種東西。

So there’s nothing to be “saved” at all.

所以根本就沒有什么需要被“拯救”的。

But Trump would personally gain hugely. His Russian oligarch loan backers would convert those loans to overt bribes, and fund him even more, at better terms.

但特朗普個(gè)人將獲得巨大利益。他的俄羅斯寡頭貸款支持者將把這些貸款轉(zhuǎn)化為公開的賄賂，并以更優(yōu)惠的條件進(jìn)一步資助他。

Kim Wegenke
It will cost us lots of money.

這將花費(fèi)我們很多錢。

First expense is in moving American troops and equipment out of Europe. Do you think they want a country that refuses to be an ally keep a huge army in their country? Is there enough space on bases to house all that? What will the US pay to build up bases to replace European bases lost? A big base in Germany has logistic advantages, too.

第一項(xiàng)開支是撤出美國駐歐部隊(duì)和裝備。你認(rèn)為他們會(huì)希望一個(gè)拒絕結(jié)盟的國家在境內(nèi)保留大批軍隊(duì)嗎？基地有足夠空間容納所有部隊(duì)嗎？美國要花多少錢來建造基地以取代失去的歐洲基地？德國的大型基地還具有后勤優(yōu)勢。

Second is the loss in trade. NATO countries want to buy weapons from NATO countries. Their governments have preferred country standards when they buy stuff. Leaving NATO, hurts the US on both of those issues.

其次是貿(mào)易損失。北約國家希望從北約國家購買武器。他們的政府在購買物品時(shí)有優(yōu)先國家的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。退出北約，在這兩個(gè)問題上都會(huì)傷害美國。

Just a quess. I would say the US government loses $1B a year in taxes on that lose in GDP, after paying to move troops.

只是猜測。我會(huì)說，美國政府每年在GDP損失后支付軍隊(duì)調(diào)動(dòng)費(fèi)用時(shí)，會(huì)損失10億美元的稅收。

Matthew Thacker
The US contributes around $450 million dollars annually. This is a tiny drop in the bucket (3.45% of our GDP). For comparison, when Mitt Romney was running for president against Obama, he suggested cutting out funding for public TV and radio and everyone mocked him as $367 million wasn't going to make a dent in the deficit. What we get for that tiny investment is the world's largest military alliance against aggressors like Russia. It is a very affordable deterrent to prevent wars from coming to fruition against our friends and trade partners, which would inevitably lead to a ramp up here at home and significant increases to our military budget, already running high at 800 billion a year.

美國每年貢獻(xiàn)約4.5億美元。這對(duì)于我們的GDP來說只是滄海一粟（占GDP的3.45%）。作為對(duì)比，當(dāng)米特·羅姆尼在與奧巴馬競選總統(tǒng)時(shí)，他建議取消對(duì)公共電視和廣播的資助，而每個(gè)人都嘲笑他，因?yàn)?.67億美元不會(huì)對(duì)赤字產(chǎn)生任何影響。我們?yōu)檫@一微小投資所得到的是世界上最大的軍事聯(lián)盟，旨在對(duì)抗像俄羅斯這樣的侵略者。這是一個(gè)非常實(shí)惠的威懾手段，可以防止針對(duì)我們的朋友和貿(mào)易伙伴的戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)，否則這將不可避免地導(dǎo)致我們?cè)趪鴥?nèi)的軍事擴(kuò)張，并大幅增加已經(jīng)高達(dá)每年8000億美元的軍事預(yù)算。

Grethe Therese Juel
USA wouldn’t save any money at all. They’d loose for several reasons:

美國根本不會(huì)節(jié)省任何錢。他們會(huì)因?yàn)閹讉€(gè)原因而虧損：

The number of US troops assigned to NATO operations in peacetime is probably no more than 50,000 at most. There are actually 75,000 US troops in Europe but many of them are assigned with support roles for US operations outside NATO (particularly in the Middle East). NATO actually only takes up a tiny little fraction of USA’s military budget.

在和平時(shí)期，美國分配給北約行動(dòng)的軍隊(duì)數(shù)量可能最多不超過5萬人。實(shí)際上，美國在歐洲有7.5萬駐軍，但其中許多軍隊(duì)被分配用于支持美國在北約之外的行動(dòng)（特別是在中東）。北約實(shí)際上只占美國軍事預(yù)算的很小一部分。

Without access to bases in Europe, USA would have to come up with alternatives for their operations in the areas near the European NATO countries (again, mostly but not only the Middle East). For a start they would probably have to create on more Carrier Strike Force for the Mediterrean sea and those are horrendously expensive.

如果沒有歐洲的基地，美國將不得不為其在歐洲北約國家附近地區(qū)（主要是但不限于中東）的行動(dòng)尋找替代方案。首先，他們可能不得不在地中海地區(qū)組建更多的航母打擊群，而這些成本是非常高昂的。

NATO is an alliance for mutual assistance. The (in)famous Article 5 has only ever been triggered once and that was by USA. Some NATO countries have also often been persuaded to join USA in military operations that have nothing to do with NATO at all. (They shouldn’t but they do anyway.) That has saved USA a lot of money over the years and without that support USA would have to significantly increase its military budget.

北約是一個(gè)互助聯(lián)盟。著名的（或臭名昭著的）第5條僅被觸發(fā)過一次，且是由美國發(fā)起的。一些北約國家也經(jīng)常被說服加入與北約無關(guān)的軍事行動(dòng)中。（他們本不應(yīng)該這樣做，但還是這么做了。）這些年來，這為美國節(jié)省了大量資金，如果沒有這種支持，美國將不得不大幅增加其軍事預(yù)算。

The military intelligence services of the NATO countries cooperate extensively. Without NATO both USA and Europe would probably have to double their spending on information gathering to maintain the same quality.

北約國家的軍事情報(bào)部門廣泛合作。如果沒有北約，美國和歐洲可能需要將情報(bào)收集的支出翻倍，以維持相同的情報(bào)質(zhì)量。

A lot of the development of new weapons systems are collaborations between US and European arms manufacturers. This would be much harder to do without NATO.

許多新型武器系統(tǒng)的開發(fā)都是美國和歐洲武器制造商之間的合作。如果沒有北約，這將更加困難。

USA is agressively pushing US made weapons onto other NATO countries, often using standardization as an excuse to persuade European NATO members to buy from them even though there are better alternatives elsewhere. If USA left NATO, the European countries would soon switch much of their weapons purchasing from USA to their own domestic manufacturers and to manufacturers elsewhere in the world. South Korea is particularly interesting here these days. (A complicating factor here is that a surprisingly big part of the US arms industry is actually European owned. It’s hard to say exactly what that would mean is USA left NATO.)

美國正在積極地向其他北約國家推銷美國制造的武器，經(jīng)常以標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化為借口，說服歐洲北約成員國從他們那里購買，盡管其他地方有更好的選擇。如果美國離開北約，歐洲國家很快就會(huì)將大部分武器采購從美國轉(zhuǎn)向自己的國內(nèi)制造商和世界其他地區(qū)的制造商。在這方面，韓國尤其引人注目。（一個(gè)復(fù)雜的因素是，美國武器工業(yè)中出人意料地有很大一部分實(shí)際上是歐洲人擁有的。很難確切地說，如果美國離開北約，這意味著什么。）

Robbie Robinson
Simplistically, a sum of about 1/2 billion would be “saved”. However, since the majority of the NATO countries buy their weapons from the USA, the USA military industry would lose much more than that. European countries’ economies would benefit considerably, because their military spending would be either in-house or at least within the EU. If Trump becomes President, it will probably be of benefit to NATO if the USA does withdraw both economically and on security grounds. Trump has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with American classified documents and there is reason to fear that the Australian to whom he boasted about US military information might have caused it to be leaked to Putin. This is just one example where Trump cannot be considered as a trusted partner in NATO.

簡單來說，大約5億的資金將被“節(jié)省”。然而，由于大多數(shù)北約國家從美國購買武器，美國軍事工業(yè)的損失將遠(yuǎn)超這個(gè)數(shù)字。歐洲國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)將因此顯著受益，因?yàn)樗鼈兊能娛麻_支要么在內(nèi)部進(jìn)行，至少也是在歐盟內(nèi)部。如果特朗普成為總統(tǒng)，美國從經(jīng)濟(jì)和安全角度退出北約，可能對(duì)北約有利。特朗普已經(jīng)證明他不能信任美國機(jī)密文件，人們有理由擔(dān)心他向澳大利亞人炫耀的美國軍事信息可能已泄露給普京。這只是特朗普不能被視為北約可信伙伴的一個(gè)例子。

Chris Ervin
Savings would be negligible. The US doesn’t fund the administration of NATO any more than any other NATO nation. The financial commitment that NATO nations make is to make their best effort to spend 2% of their GDP on their own militaries to keep them ready for armed conflict in defense of other NATO members. The US already spends more than 2% of GDP on its own military to meet its own perceived needs. That is not going to change by pulling out of NATO. If anything it might create an even great financial burden if the US needed to get involved in the European theater without the bases they currently have on the land of NATO allies.

節(jié)省的金額將微乎其微。美國對(duì)北約行政管理的資助并不比其他北約國家多。北約國家的財(cái)政承諾是盡最大努力將其GDP的2%用于本國軍隊(duì)，以保持其武裝力量能隨時(shí)為其他北約成員國進(jìn)行防御。美國已經(jīng)將其GDP的2%以上用于滿足自身需求的軍事開支。退出北約并不會(huì)改變這一點(diǎn)。事實(shí)上，如果美國需要介入歐洲戰(zhàn)區(qū)，但沒有目前在北約盟國領(lǐng)土上的基地，可能會(huì)造成更大的財(cái)政負(fù)擔(dān)。

To sum it up, NATO membership creates a savings and a strategic advantage in time of war. It makes no sense to leave NATO. There is also the factor that it is good to have friends. The only NATO nation that has ever taken advantage of Article 5 of the NATO charter and called the alliance to war was the US after 9/11. Guess what happened. The members of NATO got kitted up and went to war alongside the US in the war against terror. If you pull out of NATO you don’t have friends like that. Reliable alliances are worth keeping.

總而言之，北約成員身份在戰(zhàn)爭時(shí)期創(chuàng)造了節(jié)約和戰(zhàn)略優(yōu)勢。退出北約毫無意義。此外，擁有朋友也是一個(gè)重要因素。歷史上唯一一個(gè)利用北約憲章第五條并號(hào)召聯(lián)盟參戰(zhàn)的北約國家是美國，那是在9/11事件之后。猜猜發(fā)生了什么。北約成員國整裝待發(fā)，與美國并肩作戰(zhàn)，參與反恐戰(zhàn)爭。如果你退出北約，你就不會(huì)有這樣的朋友?？煽康穆?lián)盟值得保持。

很多。然而，這使北約更多地成為俄羅斯的目標(biāo)。如果俄羅斯擴(kuò)大其影響力，全球后果可能不會(huì)好。我們可能會(huì)在其他地方花費(fèi)更多的錢。所以，長期儲(chǔ)蓄是未知的，在我看來。

Thomas Wm. Hamilton
In the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR there were some cuts in military spending, but it was trivial in terms of the total federal budget. Done today the effect would vanish in a few years as costs arising from Islamic crazies gaining total control over the Middle East and Russian troops advancing to the English Channel against feeble opposition. But you knew all this, didn’t you, Ivan?

在蘇聯(lián)解體后，軍費(fèi)開支有所削減，但這在聯(lián)邦總預(yù)算中是微不足道的。如果今天這樣做，其效果將在幾年內(nèi)消失，因?yàn)橐了固m狂熱分子完全控制中東以及俄羅斯軍隊(duì)在無力抵抗的情況下推進(jìn)到英吉利海峽所引發(fā)的成本。但你已經(jīng)知道這一切了，不是嗎，伊萬？

Adam Griffith
The budget of NATO administration is about 3 billion. The US pays a little over 16% of that, so around 500 million. If you’re talking about closing all our foreign military bases and shrinking our military, we could save a lot, but no one in power has ever been very serious about cutting defense spending.

北約的行政預(yù)算約為30億美元。美國支付其中的略高于16%，大約為5億美元。如果你在談?wù)撽P(guān)閉我們所有的海外軍事基地并縮減我們的軍隊(duì)，我們可以節(jié)省很多，但掌權(quán)者中從未有人非常認(rèn)真地考慮過削減國防開支。

China - World Leader

中國 - 世界領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者

American positioned as Policemen of the world and paying the price of their pride. On the other hand ordinary people are suffering like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia etc.

美國自詡為世界警察，并為他們的驕傲付出代價(jià)。另一方面，普通民眾如阿富汗、伊拉克、敘利亞、利比亞等地的人民正在受苦。

America borrowing and adding cost of living for their next generation. Israel getting benefits occupying more land against UN Resolutions with HR violations and practicing all which were used by Nazi Hitler forces.

美國在為下一代借貸并增加生活成本。以色列違反聯(lián)合國決議，通過侵犯人權(quán)占領(lǐng)更多土地，并實(shí)踐了納粹希特勒軍隊(duì)所使用的一切手段，從中獲利。

Helen Briscoe
USA has nowhere to house returning troops and hardware. It will cost you a fortune to build infrastructure alone.

美國沒有地方安置返回的部隊(duì)和裝備。僅建設(shè)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施就將花費(fèi)一大筆錢。

Then you would have no-one to play war games with

那你就會(huì)沒有人和你玩戰(zhàn)爭游戲了

And you loose your Africa forward base in Germany. And your intelligence bases.

而且你失去了在德國的非洲前進(jìn)基地。還有你的情報(bào)基地。

And you are the only one who invoked Article 5 after 9/11.

而你是唯一一個(gè)在9/11之后援引了第5條的人。

Matthew Thacker
The US contributes around $450 million dollars annually. This is a tiny drop in the bucket (3.45% of our GDP). For comparison, when Mitt Romney was running for president against Obama, he suggested cutting out funding for public TV and radio and everyone mocked him as $367 million wasn't going to make a dent in the deficit. What we get for that tiny investment is the world's largest military alliance against aggressors like Russia. It is a very affordable deterrent to prevent wars from coming to fruition against our friends and trade partners, which would inevitably lead to a ramp up here at home and significant increases to our military budget, already running high at 800 billion a year.

美國每年貢獻(xiàn)約4.5億美元。這只是我們GDP的一小部分（占3.45%）。作為對(duì)比，當(dāng)米特·羅姆尼與奧巴馬競選總統(tǒng)時(shí)，他建議取消對(duì)公共電視和廣播的資助，而大家都嘲笑他，因?yàn)?.67億美元并不會(huì)對(duì)赤字產(chǎn)生多大影響。我們用這筆微小的投資換來了世界上最大的軍事聯(lián)盟，以對(duì)抗像俄羅斯這樣的侵略者。這是一個(gè)非常實(shí)惠的威懾，可以防止針對(duì)我們朋友和貿(mào)易伙伴的戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)，這必然會(huì)導(dǎo)致我們國內(nèi)的軍事預(yù)算增加，而我們的軍事預(yù)算已經(jīng)高達(dá)每年8000億美元。

Kim Wegenke

It will cost us lots of money.

這將花費(fèi)我們很多錢。

First expense is in moving American troops and equipment out of Europe. Do you think they want a country that refuses to be an ally keep a huge army in their country? Is there enough space on bases to house all that? What will the US pay to build up bases to replace European bases lost? A big base in Germany has logistic advantages, too.

第一筆開支是將美軍和裝備從歐洲撤出。你認(rèn)為他們希望一個(gè)拒絕成為盟友的國家在他們的領(lǐng)土上保留大量軍隊(duì)嗎？基地是否有足夠的空間容納所有這些？美國將支付多少費(fèi)用來建立基地以替代失去的歐洲基地？德國的一個(gè)大型基地也具有后勤優(yōu)勢。

Second is the loss in trade. NATO countries want to buy weapons from NATO countries. Their governments have preferred country standards when they buy stuff. Leaving NATO, hurts the US on both of those issues.

其次是貿(mào)易損失。北約國家希望從北約國家購買武器。它們的政府在采購物資時(shí)有優(yōu)先國家的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。退出北約，美國在這兩個(gè)問題上都會(huì)受到傷害。

Just a quess. I would say the US government loses $1B a year in taxes on that lose in GDP, after paying to move troops.

只是猜測。我會(huì)說，美國政府每年因此損失的GDP稅收達(dá)到了10億美元，這是在支付調(diào)動(dòng)軍隊(duì)的費(fèi)用之后。

Jonathan Stubley
Pulling out of NATO? - savings initially = nothing.

退出北約？ - 起初的節(jié)省 = 無。

You now no longer have the refuelling facilities in Europe and early warning radars etc but you do have an excess of military personnel doing nothing and still need paying.

你現(xiàn)在在歐洲不再有加油設(shè)施和早期預(yù)警雷達(dá)等，但你卻有過剩的軍事人員無所事事，仍然需要支付薪水。

Being in NATO - costs the NATO Countries for their own defence forces there is no central fund.

加入北約 - 北約成員國需要為自己的國防力量承擔(dān)費(fèi)用，這里沒有中央基金。

Being OUT of NATO - costs all the military sales to the NATO alliance, you don't buy weapons from somewhere who is not your Ally.

退出北約——意味著失去了北約聯(lián)盟的所有軍火銷售，你不會(huì)從一個(gè)不是盟友的地方購買武器。

Henk Beukers
It will make the US broke. The US economy is running in war mode where the NATO is a major money maker for the military complex. If Trump want to rase the % of the GBP by other NATO partners he can’t expect they continue to receive the orders created by those budget rases. Canada and Portugal cancelled already F-35 order replacing them for non USA brands b ecause of bad partnership. If all USA military personal stationed in Europe will be send back the US Musk can fire them or place them at the border of Mexico or Canada.

這將使美國破產(chǎn)。美國經(jīng)濟(jì)正以戰(zhàn)爭模式運(yùn)行，北約是軍事工業(yè)復(fù)合體的主要賺錢工具。如果特朗普想要提高其他北約伙伴的國防預(yù)算比例，他不能指望他們會(huì)繼續(xù)收到由這些預(yù)算增加帶來的訂單。加拿大和葡萄牙已經(jīng)因?yàn)榛锇殛P(guān)系不佳取消了F-35訂單，轉(zhuǎn)而選擇非美國品牌。如果所有駐扎在歐洲的美國軍事人員被撤回，美國可以解雇他們或?qū)⑺麄儼仓迷谀鞲缁蚣幽么筮吘场?br />
Gordon Bennett
By the time the NATO allies have stopped buying American defence equipment and technologies, America will loose one of its key industries and billions of dollars. It will be a loss for America not a saving. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just as stupid as Comrade Krasnov.

等到北約盟國停止購買美國的國防設(shè)備和技術(shù)，美國將失去其關(guān)鍵產(chǎn)業(yè)之一和數(shù)十億美元。這對(duì)美國來說將是一種損失，而不是節(jié)省。任何不這么認(rèn)為的人都像克拉斯諾夫同志一樣愚蠢。

Bill Brown
well we don’t have to pull out of NATO to align with agreed upon defense level spending. If we halved our defense budget we could save enough to end our debt. We could even still be NATO members, we just wouldn’t have forces ready to deploy to Europe for a while. Those nations understand this and have begun spending to build their own forces again. We can be NATO members and not have forces deployed in Europe.

好吧，我們不必退出北約來與商定的防御開支水平保持一致。如果我們將軍費(fèi)預(yù)算減半，我們就能節(jié)省足夠的資金來消除我們的債務(wù)。我們甚至仍然可以是北約成員國，只是我們暫時(shí)不會(huì)準(zhǔn)備好向歐洲部署軍隊(duì)。這些國家理解這一點(diǎn)，并已經(jīng)開始重新投入資金來建立自己的軍隊(duì)。我們可以是北約成員國，而不在歐洲部署軍隊(duì)。

Not everything is dollars and cents. America is quickly losing its influence in world affairs with the recent trade wars, verbal attacks in former allies, abandonment of foreign aid and so forth. Leaving NATO would isolate the USA further and would put national security at risk in many ways, the least of which being no longer tied to mutual defense agreements.

并非一切都是金錢利益。美國在世界事務(wù)中的影響力正迅速減弱，最近的貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)、對(duì)前盟友的言語攻擊、放棄對(duì)外援助等都是明證。退出北約將使美國更加孤立，并在多方面危及國家安全，其中至少包括不再受共同防御協(xié)議的約束。