美国如果退出北约并将所有资金带回美国，将节省多少钱？

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

它用于北约管理的微量支出。就是这样。

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.

各国并不为北约直接花费资金。他们投资于自己的军队，而北约成员国则承诺在受到攻击时使用这些军队相互支援。因此，除了行政费用外，北约实际上不花费任何资金，除非你真的被要求去帮助另一个成员国。

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.

到目前为止，唯一请求或接受北约帮助的北约成员国是美国，因此其他北约国家花费资金帮助美国。

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

我认为美国退出北约不会带来任何节省，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.

北约成员国自愿同意将一定比例的支出用于国防。美国经常超出这一比例的事实，并不意味着退出北约会自动带来节省。

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.

事实上，许多北约成员国花费了大量国防预算参与最新美国武器系统的开发成本，这使得美国军事设备的单位成本降低。

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

我们看到，在橘子猩猩掌权和他的乡巴佬副手的领导下，今天的美国被视为一个不可靠的盟友。

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

因此，欧洲人正在从购买过于复杂且昂贵的美国防御系统转向购买他们自己控制的本土生产系统。

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

只需将一家美国国防承包商和一家德国+瑞典的国防承包商的股票价格并排看一下。

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，退出北约需要在两院中获得绝对多数票，而目前没有任何一个党派拥有这样的票数。因此，这种情况不会发生。

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.

接下来，所有北约国家都为自己的武装力量和国防支付费用，因此除非美国削减自己的国防开支，否则美国在这方面不会有任何节省。

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

当然还有北约管理预算，美国支付与德国相同的金额。

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

那是在2024年占33亿美元中的15.8813%。

So the USA might save $524 million USD.

因此，美国可能节省5.24亿美元。

Peanuts compared to the total US budgetary expenditure.

与美国总预算支出相比，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.

美国每年神秘地超支了大约一半的金额，而这些超支被国防部的会计们称为“多余的零件和补给”。

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

看吧，美国并没有为‘北约军队’买单，如果你是这样想的。实际上根本没有这样的东西。

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

每个成员国只需支付其自身军队的费用，这些军队主要用于自身防御，就像北约从未存在过一样。

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.

但每个成员国也同意，在另一个受到攻击的北约成员国召唤时，提供部分自己的部队组成多国北约部队。

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.

在北约的整个历史中，到目前为止这种情况只发生过一次——那就是美国在9/11袭击后请求北约提供援助。

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.

北约各成员国确实同意支付该组织的行政费用，每年大约为40亿美元。这笔费用的分摊比例与各国的国民收入相关。美国和德国每年各支付约16%，即5亿美元。

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500亿与美国的整体军事预算相比只是九牛一毛：8500亿美元。如果你只是想省钱，可以从收紧那些“多余的零件和物资”开始。

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)

这将节省美国支付的相对较少的北约管理预算（与德国相同 - 比法国和英国略多，其他国家则按比例递减）

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

按人均计算，美国实际上支付的费用比大多数其他国家要少得多。

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.

如果美国从北约国家撤出所有基地——这些基地并不由美国支付费用——并遣返所有军队及设备，这将使美国付出数倍于现在的代价。

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.

如果其他北约国家从本国已经扩大生产的军火制造商那里寻求供应，而不是购买美国武器，美国军火工业也将面临巨大损失。许多欧洲的军备和飞机在采购和维护成本上比美国同等产品更具成本效益。

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

此外，还需要考虑世界军火市场上出现的一个更强大的新竞争对手。

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.

现任美国总统很可能无法理解这一点，尤其是考虑到他迄今为止表现出的完全缺乏商业头脑的情况。因此，国会和参议院中更明智的头脑极有可能不会接受这样的行动，这也是好事。

Reluctant Witness

不情愿的证人

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.

数万亿美元！如果不加入北约，就没有理由留在欧洲，因此也没有理由在欧洲设立基地，那么所有那些昂贵的装备都可以通过昂贵的货机和船只运回国内。所有那些训练有素、充满攻击性的战士都可以回到家里，面对失业和无聊（哦哦）。不再需要支持基地，你就不需要如此强大的海军，因此你可以退役，或者更好的是，出售整个航母打击群。然后，自然没有了这样的海军，你就不需要深水港口。节省下来的钱源源不断！然而，你现在有一群训练有素、充满攻击性且失业的水手四处游荡，与他们的陆军同行会面。别忘了那些非常昂贵的空军，他们不再有地方降落，只能轰炸，他们也可以被缩减。所有那些受过训练、理想主义且失业的战士们在想哪里出了问题，寻找答案，看着特朗普。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.

你认为如果美国退出北约，它会在军事上少花一美元吗？美国每年都在增加军费预算，并将继续这样做。

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.

特朗普对北约的描述非常愚蠢。他为美国本来就在做的事情标上了价格。美国控制着北约，这并不需要花费金钱。北约确保了与美国武器制造商的军事合同，并且利润丰厚。另一方面，北约从未为保卫欧洲或特朗普所声称的任何事情而打过仗。过去20年中，北约的唯一行动都非常以美国为中心：阿富汗战争是最大的一个。让北约伙伴参与这场对其他北约成员来说不必要的战争，为美国节省了数十亿美元。另一场战争是利比亚，情况与阿富汗相似。唯一有用的行动是在索马里的一些反海盗行动。它们对美国和其他成员国同样有利。使用北约成员国的机场/基地也为美国在中东的干预省下了很多钱。

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

你认为北约的哪些行为只对其他成员国有利，并且能为美国节省开支？

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.

理论上，我们可以节省大约8亿美元（我们的国防预算超过9000亿美元），这是我们分担的行政费用部分。但随后我们会花费大量资金确保与盟友的沟通和合作，因此实际节省的金额并不会那么高。

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.

北约最擅长什么？在战争开始之前阻止它们。战争让我们所有人都付出代价，即使我们没有直接参与。你知道为什么俄罗斯没有攻击波兰或其前成员国之一吗？因为北约。你知道为什么他们攻击乌克兰吗？因为乌克兰不是北约的一部分，所以普京觉得为什么不呢？你知道为什么俄罗斯不敢攻击最新的北约成员国芬兰和瑞典吗？没错，你猜对了。

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

省钱是很好的。在短期内省钱，然后在长期内花费多倍的钱是愚蠢和短视的。

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

那些无用的国家将节省一点钱，这些钱将用于北约的运作。

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.

但他们的损失将远远超过节省的开支，他们将不得不支付遣返10万名军事人员的费用，以及运回和存储所有相关设备的费用。然后，他们还将失去价值数十亿美元的军事合同，因为欧洲开始投资于自己的国防工业。

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.

接着是失去投射力量的能力，你无法在航空母舰上操作B-52或C-17飞机，所以祝你好运在中东投射力量。你还失去了阿森松岛，因此进入非洲的通道突然变得更加困难。迭戈加西亚也失去了，因此美国在印度洋和北阿拉伯海的补给将变得困难。

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

突然间，美国变成了一个三等国家，拥有远超其需要的军事力量

1.5K views

1.5万次观看

View 2 upvotes

查看2个赞同

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，但你离开的好处将是巨大的，并且会受到世界的欢迎。美国佬并不是城里最好的团队，他们自以为是，但事实并非如此。我确信你可以省钱，而且我知道那对一个美国佬来说是最重要的事情。北约的其他成员会更好，我们可以邀请乌克兰加入。我们不需要美国佬，我们应该欣然让他们离开。

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.

你还有多少更多的高楼、购物中心、历史重要中心、脆弱的军事地点、港口、交通基础设施和能源分配设施。美国应该将这些价值与节省的金钱一起考虑。

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.

这是一个需要进行的现实评估，因为在‘近代’历史和世界各地签订的众多条约、协议和承诺将留下如此多的怨恨和敌意，以至于你的敌人（你确实有敌人）将会有更多的空间去做他们的工作，而你的盟友则不会那么紧密地关注和支持你的利益。

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.

全球的不稳定确实会再次出现在你的家门口。过去常常有一种共识，即‘在那里与他们战斗’而不是‘在这里’。如果你希望继续这种短视的新政策，我们期待告诉你我们早就说过了。

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‘所有那些钱’——你尽管留着吧。美元并不是唯一稳定的货币——尽管它的交易量最大。随着欧盟贸易的关闭、真正的金砖国家贸易协定的发展以及亚洲/澳大利亚市场的紧密联系，你独自发起的当前贸易和关税战争——美国将在全球贸易中从一个弱势地位面临更大的困难。但别让我们告诉你我们早就说过。不，真的别让我们说。我们更喜欢一个（相对）自由贸易和交流的时代。如果你破坏了这一点，那么你可以从你自己的海岸上清理它。用你们副总统的话来说，这个欧洲的搭便车者已经受够了你们对主权国家、朋友和盟友的愚蠢威胁，并很高兴看到你们搭便车的站点从我们的土地上移除。不是你的钱或你的军事实力——而是态度和侮辱让我们难以接受。这种行为就像是一场激烈离婚的开场。

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.

我向我的常客们道歉，这可能是我迄今为止最尖锐的回应。我通常寻找务实和理性的立场，但这个问题是我最近读过的最欠考虑、最自私自大的愚蠢至极的东西。幸运的是，我不是世界领袖，所以我的意见不过是沧海一粟，显然这海既不够宽也不够深，无法满足欧洲的孤立——或美国。这个国家里，老鼠在掌舵，世界期待着看到他们离开这艘船。MAGA——自雅利安种族纯洁以来最大的谎言——一个从未存在过的伪科学类别。无论如何，撤军并把你们的军队带回家吧。你们会需要他们的！哪怕只是为了维持街道秩序，防止你们自己的平民闹事。与此同时，你们可以削减整个军事力量，用无薪的应征者取而代之。更便宜！你们不需要所有那些全球情报机构，可以大幅缩减到仅在国内，省下更多钱。你们有没有考虑过为所有那些大量的移民和非白人重新引入强制劳动——他们显然不是‘真正的美国人’——在17世纪之前的南方非常成功。我相信‘南方’可以帮助你们组织这个。因为‘组织起来’是他们擅长的事情。

Regards

此致

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

没有。他们带回的钱会比今天少。

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.

美国将其部队留在欧洲而非美国本土，这要便宜得多，因为部分费用由东道国承担。

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.

你还必须加上这些部队所支持的影响力。利用这种影响力，欧洲人被说服购买价值数十亿美元的美国武器。不仅仅是武器，欧洲政府还与美国公司签署了许多其他昂贵的合同。这意味着美国本土会有很多就业机会。

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.

欧洲的防务如此依赖美军，这对美国来说是一项巨大成就。美国有些人如果真的想要改变这一点，那就真是愚蠢至极，尤其是现在，美军在欧洲仍是唯一的正面美国形象。按照欧洲的标准，美国的政治和民主已经走向了一个奇怪的方向。

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).

特朗普现在的问题是，如何与俄罗斯和解（以便专注于中国），但同时保持欧洲与俄罗斯的对立，以增加欧洲的军事开支（即购买更多美国武器）。

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.

美国将其国防预算的约0.06%用于北约。北约本身几乎不花费美国什么，如果美国退出，它将失去在欧洲各地的军事基地的使用权——或者欧洲国家会向美国收取高额费用来保留这些基地。

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.

关于其他国家是否在北约上花费足够的争论，指的是与美国庞大的军事预算相比，他们是否在自己的军事上花费足够。

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.

退出北约只会意味着美国需要在军事上花费更多，或者放弃成为超级大国。成为超级大国的关键前提是全球影响力，而要实现这一点，就需要在全球范围内建立军事基地。

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.

无。零。北约成员国要求将GDP的2%用于国防。美国无论如何都会这么做。他们不加入北约唯一能省钱的方式是退出并削减国防开支，减少武装力量。如果美国不在北约，一些北约国家可能会考虑开发和投资北约国家的武器，而不是购买美国拥有的武器。因此，这实际上会损害美国经济。在同一武器平台上进行交叉训练是有意义的。如果美国不在北约，投资那些北约成员国的技术是有意义的。

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 …

我确实想知道，当普京（基本上无人反对）启动他的连任竞选活动，以及当特朗普（反北约）准备再次尝试毁掉美国时，为什么今天会有这么多这样的问题……我确信这只是一个巧合……

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

就像往常一样，细节决定成败。

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

所以退出北约，我们将关闭所有基地，并将部队和装备撤回美国。

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

我们不会考虑任何能力损失，只会考虑可能的成本节约。

Do you intend to retain these troops or discharge them 

你打算保留这些部队还是解散他们？

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

保留 - 那么你仍然需要为它们以及在美国境内的额外基地/营区支付费用，节省有限但保留（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——虽然你现在节省了工资支出，但你的税基减少了，而且在他们寻找其他工作期间，可能需要支付增加的社会福利。

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、裁减军队，如果你正在解雇（阻止再次入伍），减少人数，训练预算和工资账单肯定会减少。不过，这也涉及到税基和社会福利以及工作场所的额外人员。

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. 如果进行规模缩减，我们是否也在考虑基地以及军队人数？如果考虑的话，你可以在可能的维护和保养、能源成本上节省开支，所以是的，有一些节省是可能的。当然，然后你会对当地经济、商店、酒吧以及之前在基地受雇的一些平民工作造成冲击。

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.

装备方面，你需要这么多飞机、装甲车和武器系统吗？那样会节省一些。尽管美国的军火工业可能不会喜欢这样，可能会再次影响到就业。

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)

州代表们现在不太可能高兴，军火工业是主要的捐助者（同时也是雇主，请注意我是如何将工作列为第二重要的）。

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.

估计的少量金额在5亿至8亿美元之间。美国的国防预算覆盖全球，而且因为有北约，他们不需要花太多钱来覆盖欧洲。如果撤出，他们会失去更多，比如情报共享和武器销售，而且他们可能仍然希望保留存在，以便在全球范围内投射力量。

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.

美国在欧洲有其原因，它是迄今为止唯一一个援引北约第五条要求北约成员国提供支持的国家。它还利用北约国家进行转移行动，如战斗机，并作为发动行动的基地，例如对利比亚的空袭和在海湾战争期间的行动。

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.

美国军方希望北约成为其行动基地和监听站，就像日本或朝鲜一样，没有它，他们在包括北非和中东在内的周边地区的能力将大大降低。

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

到目前为止，美国在成本方面做得很好，因为它是唯一一个要求其他国家代表其参战的国家。

Michael Munson
It would be a huge net loss.

这将是一个巨大的净损失。

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

美国设法出售给北约成员国的所有武器系统都将被非美国等效产品所取代。

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

美国仍然需要支付所有执行北约职责的美国军人的薪酬，至少在最初阶段。

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.

美国将比现在损失更多的情报收集成本（由于对盟友的关税战争，他们已经损失了许多），因此要么开始比现在失去更多的“间谍战争”。

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

最后，美国并不向北约支付“会费”。因为没有这种东西。

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

所以根本就没有什么需要被“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.

但特朗普个人将获得巨大利益。他的俄罗斯寡头贷款支持者将把这些贷款转化为公开的贿赂，并以更优惠的条件进一步资助他。

Kim Wegenke
It will cost us lots of money.

这将花费我们很多钱。

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.

第一项开支是撤出美国驻欧部队和装备。你认为他们会希望一个拒绝结盟的国家在境内保留大批军队吗？基地有足够空间容纳所有部队吗？美国要花多少钱来建造基地以取代失去的欧洲基地？德国的大型基地还具有后勤优势。

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.

其次是贸易损失。北约国家希望从北约国家购买武器。他们的政府在购买物品时有优先国家的标准。退出北约，在这两个问题上都会伤害美国。

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.

只是猜测。我会说，美国政府每年在GDP损失后支付军队调动费用时，会损失10亿美元的税收。

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.

美国每年贡献约4.5亿美元。这对于我们的GDP来说只是沧海一粟（占GDP的3.45%）。作为对比，当米特·罗姆尼在与奥巴马竞选总统时，他建议取消对公共电视和广播的资助，而每个人都嘲笑他，因为3.67亿美元不会对赤字产生任何影响。我们为这一微小投资所得到的是世界上最大的军事联盟，旨在对抗像俄罗斯这样的侵略者。这是一个非常实惠的威慑手段，可以防止针对我们的朋友和贸易伙伴的战争爆发，否则这将不可避免地导致我们在国内的军事扩张，并大幅增加已经高达每年8000亿美元的军事预算。

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

美国根本不会节省任何钱。他们会因为几个原因而亏损：

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.

在和平时期，美国分配给北约行动的军队数量可能最多不超过5万人。实际上，美国在欧洲有7.5万驻军，但其中许多军队被分配用于支持美国在北约之外的行动（特别是在中东）。北约实际上只占美国军事预算的很小一部分。

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.

如果没有欧洲的基地，美国将不得不为其在欧洲北约国家附近地区（主要是但不限于中东）的行动寻找替代方案。首先，他们可能不得不在地中海地区组建更多的航母打击群，而这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.

北约是一个互助联盟。著名的（或臭名昭著的）第5条仅被触发过一次，且是由美国发起的。一些北约国家也经常被说服加入与北约无关的军事行动中。（他们本不应该这样做，但还是这么做了。）这些年来，这为美国节省了大量资金，如果没有这种支持，美国将不得不大幅增加其军事预算。

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.

北约国家的军事情报部门广泛合作。如果没有北约，美国和欧洲可能需要将情报收集的支出翻倍，以维持相同的情报质量。

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.

许多新型武器系统的开发都是美国和欧洲武器制造商之间的合作。如果没有北约，这将更加困难。

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.)

美国正在积极地向其他北约国家推销美国制造的武器，经常以标准化为借口，说服欧洲北约成员国从他们那里购买，尽管其他地方有更好的选择。如果美国离开北约，欧洲国家很快就会将大部分武器采购从美国转向自己的国内制造商和世界其他地区的制造商。在这方面，韩国尤其引人注目。（一个复杂的因素是，美国武器工业中出人意料地有很大一部分实际上是欧洲人拥有的。很难确切地说，如果美国离开北约，这意味着什么。）

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.

简单来说，大约5亿的资金将被“节省”。然而，由于大多数北约国家从美国购买武器，美国军事工业的损失将远超这个数字。欧洲国家的经济将因此显著受益，因为它们的军事开支要么在内部进行，至少也是在欧盟内部。如果特朗普成为总统，美国从经济和安全角度退出北约，可能对北约有利。特朗普已经证明他不能信任美国机密文件，人们有理由担心他向澳大利亚人炫耀的美国军事信息可能已泄露给普京。这只是特朗普不能被视为北约可信伙伴的一个例子。

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.

节省的金额将微乎其微。美国对北约行政管理的资助并不比其他北约国家多。北约国家的财政承诺是尽最大努力将其GDP的2%用于本国军队，以保持其武装力量能随时为其他北约成员国进行防御。美国已经将其GDP的2%以上用于满足自身需求的军事开支。退出北约并不会改变这一点。事实上，如果美国需要介入欧洲战区，但没有目前在北约盟国领土上的基地，可能会造成更大的财政负担。

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.

总而言之，北约成员身份在战争时期创造了节约和战略优势。退出北约毫无意义。此外，拥有朋友也是一个重要因素。历史上唯一一个利用北约宪章第五条并号召联盟参战的北约国家是美国，那是在9/11事件之后。猜猜发生了什么。北约成员国整装待发，与美国并肩作战，参与反恐战争。如果你退出北约，你就不会有这样的朋友。可靠的联盟值得保持。

很多。然而，这使北约更多地成为俄罗斯的目标。如果俄罗斯扩大其影响力，全球后果可能不会好。我们可能会在其他地方花费更多的钱。所以，长期储蓄是未知的，在我看来。

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?

在苏联解体后，军费开支有所削减，但这在联邦总预算中是微不足道的。如果今天这样做，其效果将在几年内消失，因为伊斯兰狂热分子完全控制中东以及俄罗斯军队在无力抵抗的情况下推进到英吉利海峡所引发的成本。但你已经知道这一切了，不是吗，伊万？

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.

北约的行政预算约为30亿美元。美国支付其中的略高于16%，大约为5亿美元。如果你在谈论关闭我们所有的海外军事基地并缩减我们的军队，我们可以节省很多，但掌权者中从未有人非常认真地考虑过削减国防开支。

China - World Leader

中国 - 世界领导者

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.

美国自诩为世界警察，并为他们的骄傲付出代价。另一方面，普通民众如阿富汗、伊拉克、叙利亚、利比亚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.

美国在为下一代借贷并增加生活成本。以色列违反联合国决议，通过侵犯人权占领更多土地，并实践了纳粹希特勒军队所使用的一切手段，从中获利。

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

美国没有地方安置返回的部队和装备。仅建设基础设施就将花费一大笔钱。

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

那你就会没有人和你玩战争游戏了

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

而且你失去了在德国的非洲前进基地。还有你的情报基地。

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

而你是唯一一个在9/11之后援引了第5条的人。

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.

美国每年贡献约4.5亿美元。这只是我们GDP的一小部分（占3.45%）。作为对比，当米特·罗姆尼与奥巴马竞选总统时，他建议取消对公共电视和广播的资助，而大家都嘲笑他，因为3.67亿美元并不会对赤字产生多大影响。我们用这笔微小的投资换来了世界上最大的军事联盟，以对抗像俄罗斯这样的侵略者。这是一个非常实惠的威慑，可以防止针对我们朋友和贸易伙伴的战争爆发，这必然会导致我们国内的军事预算增加，而我们的军事预算已经高达每年8000亿美元。

Kim Wegenke

It will cost us lots of money.

这将花费我们很多钱。

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.

第一笔开支是将美军和装备从欧洲撤出。你认为他们希望一个拒绝成为盟友的国家在他们的领土上保留大量军队吗？基地是否有足够的空间容纳所有这些？美国将支付多少费用来建立基地以替代失去的欧洲基地？德国的一个大型基地也具有后勤优势。

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.

其次是贸易损失。北约国家希望从北约国家购买武器。它们的政府在采购物资时有优先国家的标准。退出北约，美国在这两个问题上都会受到伤害。

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.

只是猜测。我会说，美国政府每年因此损失的GDP税收达到了10亿美元，这是在支付调动军队的费用之后。

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

退出北约？ - 起初的节省 = 无。

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.

你现在在欧洲不再有加油设施和早期预警雷达等，但你却有过剩的军事人员无所事事，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.

加入北约 - 北约成员国需要为自己的国防力量承担费用，这里没有中央基金。

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.

退出北约——意味着失去了北约联盟的所有军火销售，你不会从一个不是盟友的地方购买武器。

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.

这将使美国破产。美国经济正以战争模式运行，北约是军事工业复合体的主要赚钱工具。如果特朗普想要提高其他北约伙伴的国防预算比例，他不能指望他们会继续收到由这些预算增加带来的订单。加拿大和葡萄牙已经因为伙伴关系不佳取消了F-35订单，转而选择非美国品牌。如果所有驻扎在欧洲的美国军事人员被撤回，美国可以解雇他们或将他们安置在墨西哥或加拿大边境。

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.

等到北约盟国停止购买美国的国防设备和技术，美国将失去其关键产业之一和数十亿美元。这对美国来说将是一种损失，而不是节省。任何不这么认为的人都像克拉斯诺夫同志一样愚蠢。

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，我们不必退出北约来与商定的防御开支水平保持一致。如果我们将军费预算减半，我们就能节省足够的资金来消除我们的债务。我们甚至仍然可以是北约成员国，只是我们暂时不会准备好向欧洲部署军队。这些国家理解这一点，并已经开始重新投入资金来建立自己的军队。我们可以是北约成员国，而不在欧洲部署军队。

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.

并非一切都是金钱利益。美国在世界事务中的影响力正迅速减弱，最近的贸易战、对前盟友的言语攻击、放弃对外援助等都是明证。退出北约将使美国更加孤立，并在多方面危及国家安全，其中至少包括不再受共同防御协议的约束。