您当前的位置:首页 > 网贴翻译 Tips:使用 ← → 键即可快速浏览其他文章
如果美国退出北约会发生什么?
2020-01-25 Cathy Zhao 4 收藏 纠错&举报
原文标题:What happens if the US withdraw from NATO?
原文地址:https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-the-US-withdraw-from-NATO
译文简介:北约由29个国家组成。没有任何一个国家,特别是美国可以解散它。
Josh Breshears
First I saw an answer saying that other countries are not contributing their fair share.
This is in relation to DJT’s assertion that Germany was not paying its fair share most likely.
That is simply not true.
Nations have only agreed to ensure that 1% of their GDP is contributed to NATO, with 2% being the goal. Countries spend money on their own military’s and national defense, only about half the members actually contribute approx 2% or more on a regular basis.
But all major parties contribute the agreed upon 1%. The exceptions are the smaller nations- Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia…
Which really do not have all that much to give in the first place and whose contributions would largely be seen as honorary rather than making a significant impact. They joined primarily for the protection offered, and in order to make friends not enemies were allowed to join. You will notice some of those listed countries might piss off other nations less friendly to the US…
That alone makes it worth it to the US and most other major contributors (Including France or Germany) to cover their costs out of our own pockets.
The United States in 2017 contributed 3.61% of its own GDP, approximately accounting for 1/5 (ish) of NATO funding/contributions. Germany accounts for over 14% by comparison. Given the size and economic differences… Seems like Germany is paying in a relatively comparable amount to the US. Which is why both Germany and the US ambassador called BS on DJT’s claim.
Additionally, in 2014 as well as reaffirmed in 2016 at a summit, members agreed to up contributions to the 2% level. By 2024.
1% is currently the required amount but all members (probably with exception of the above mentioned smaller ones) have agreed by 2024 to up that to 2%.

Josh Breshears
首先,我看到的回答是,其他国家没有支付其公平份额。
这与特朗普的说法有关,即德国最有可能没有支付其公平份额。
这是完全错误的。
各国只同意将其国内生产总值的1%贡献给北约,而目标是2%。各国把钱花在自己的军事和国防上,只有大约一半的成员实际上定期贡献2%或更多。
但所有主要成员国都贡献了商定的1%。除了阿尔巴尼亚、保加利亚、克罗地亚、捷克、爱沙尼亚、匈牙利、冰岛、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、卢森堡、葡萄牙、斯洛伐克和斯洛文尼亚……
他们从一开始就没有那么多钱可以捐赠,他们的贡献在很大程度上被视为荣誉,而不是产生重大影响。他们加入主要是为了得到保护,也是为了结交朋友,而不是敌人。你会注意到,其中一些国家可能会惹恼其他对美国不那么友好的国家……
单凭这一点,就值得美国和大多数其他主要捐助国(包括法国或德国)自掏腰包来支付他们的费用。
2017年,美国贡献了3.61%的国内生产总值,约占北约资金/捐款的五分之一。相比之下,德国贡献了14%以上。考虑到两国的规模和经济差异……似乎德国支付的金额与美国相当。这就是为什么德国和美国大使都对特朗普的说法嗤之以鼻的原因。
此外,在2014年以及2016年的一次峰会上重申,成员国同意将捐款提高到2%的水平。到2024年的时候。
目前的要求是1%,但所有成员国(可能除了上述较小的成员国)都同意在2024年之前将这一比例提高到2%。

Peter Hawkins, fascinated (outside) observer of American politics
Best case scenario:
Worldwide economic crisis.
There would be tremendous panic, both amongst the European NATO allies and amongst non-NATO but close American allies like Japan.
These panicking nations would be forced to quickly retool their economies for defence production. This retooling would cause major falling living standards and so a demand crisis for civilian goods. This leads to international economic crisis and worldwide recession. Major nuclear proliferation takes place too. Germany and Japan in particular would be working fast towards a bomb. 
That's a decent case scenario. No shots fired. Just a huge recession.
Worst case scenario:
Great Russo-European War.
Russia senses opportunity and overruns the Baltic nations in a matter of days and advances further West. European allies unable to blunt a Russian attack and it quickly escalates to a nuclear exchange. Millions dead (the UK expends an entire boat’s worth of missiles on Moscow in accordance with the Moscow Criterion. Russia responds in kind on London). Nevertheless the war continues and Russian troops reach the Channel due to European allies running out of materiel. European allies surrender and a negotiated peace allows Russian to keep Baltic states and a significant buffer zone (e.g. Likes of Poland can't be in the EU).

Peter HawKins,对美国政治着迷的(业余)观察家。
最好的情况:
全球经济危机。
无论是在欧洲的北约盟国,还是在像日本这样的非北约盟国,都将出现巨大的恐慌。
这些惊慌失措的国家将被迫迅速重组其经济,用于国防生产。这种重组将导致生活水平大幅下降,从而引发民用产品的需求危机。这也将导致国际经济危机和全球经济衰退。特别是德国和日本将会迅速研制出核弹。
这是一个很好的情况。没有开火。只是一个巨大的衰退。
最坏的情况:
俄罗斯-欧洲大战。
俄罗斯嗅到了机会,在几天之内就越过波罗的海国家,向西推进。欧洲盟友无法阻止俄罗斯的攻击,很快升级为一场核战。数百万人将死亡(根据莫斯科标准,英国向莫斯科投放了相当于整艘船价值的导弹)。俄罗斯以同样的方式回应伦敦)。尽管如此,战争仍在继续,由于欧洲盟友的物资告罄,俄罗斯军队到达了海峡。欧洲盟国投降,通过谈判达成和平协议,俄罗斯得以保留波罗的海国家和一个重要的缓冲区(例如,波兰等国不能留在欧盟)。

Vance Baker, Retired US Army, Military Intellgence
The US would have to set up a some bases in Africa to support US operations in the Mid East. The US would have to commit more Naval assets to Med the now that it I no longer secured by out allies and the supply and trade line is vital. NATO would become fully integrated with the EU military component. The Europeans would refocus the forces from supporting the US in the Afghanistan and other places a reorient them for the defense of Europe. They would likely get a visit from China who offer trade and investment including in European defense industries in return for tech sharing and an option buy weapons systems. Without the US pushing them Europe would likely end sanctions on Russia and restore ties. The US would have to increase defense spending to secure the Atlantic as it would no longer be as secure. The loss of NATO would a huge blow to US security and open door for China who love have the increase in influence in Europe.

Vance Baker,退役的美国陆军,军事知识分子。
美国将不得不在非洲建立一些基地来支持美国在中东的行动。美国将不得不投入更多的海军资源到地中海,因为现在它不再被我们的盟友保护,而供给和贸易线是至关重要的。北约将与欧盟军事部门完全融合。欧洲人将重新调整部队的重心,不再支持美国在阿富汗和其他地方的军事行动,而是将其重新定位为保卫欧洲。他们可能会得到中国的访问,中国提供贸易和投资,包括在欧洲的国防工业,以换取技术分享和购买武器系统的选择权。没有美国的推动,欧洲可能会结束对俄罗斯的制裁,并恢复关系。美国将不得不增加国防开支,以确保大西洋的安全,因为它将不再安全。退出北约将对美国的安全造成巨大打击,并为中国打开大门,中国想要在欧洲增加影响力。

Tomas Torheim
A number of things could happen, all dependent on how and why the US left the alliance, on a general basis:
Withdrawal of all US nationals working with or in the NATO organisation.
Withdrawal of all US military personnel stationed in Europe and other NATO countries.
Most likely a withdrawal of all NATO personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
US troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq will most likely be heavily reduced for an unspecified amount of time, until projective capabilities are restored.
New treaties must be negotiated with individual countries outside NATO, so that US projective capabilities can be restored.
Restructuring of US defense plans, new defensive perimeters must be planned, outside of European territorial waters.
A realignment of NATO, towards Africa and Middle East in defense of mainly European interests.
A possibility that Turkey leaves the NATO alliance.
NATO countries reaffirm their commitment to each other, and start channeling funds towards reestablishing logistic capabilities lost when the US left. But not to the same extent, as a world spanning projection of force will not be needed.

Tomas Torheim
可能发生的事情有很多,都取决于美国退出北约的方式和原因:
撤出所有在北约组织工作的美国公民。
撤出所有驻扎在欧洲和其他北约国家的美国军事人员。
最有可能的是北约从阿富汗和伊拉克全部撤军。
美国在阿富汗和伊拉克的驻军很可能会在一段时间内大幅减少,具体时间不详,直到恢复投射能力。
新条约必须与北约以外的个别国家谈判,以便恢复美国的投射能力。
重组美国的防御计划,必须在欧洲领海之外规划新的防御边界。
为了保护欧洲的主要利益,北约将重心转向非洲和中东。
土耳其可能退出北约。
北约国家重申对彼此的承诺,并开始将资金用于重建美国退出时失去的后勤能力。但不会达到同样的程度,因为将不再需要世界范围内的武力投射。

Mike Wolfson
First off America could reduce military spending by 1/3. Second our military would be much more flexible and agile in choices and abilities. Third we would no longer be shackled to ungrateful countries that are unwilling to spend the money and make the sacrifices necessary to actually defend themselves which is most definitely their responsibility and not ours. Fourth our relations with Russia would most likely be much better. Fifth we could lower taxes but the Dems would most likely not go along with that. Sixth we could then focus on our own problems. Nato has cost the American TAXPAYERS trillions of dollars, more than enough to take care of our problems. I could go on and on but by now you should get the point: which is nato has been and is a millstone around our necks. Would you sacrifice your money and lives for those who don't appreciate what you do for them?,who badmouth and insult you any chance they get?,who have no problem accepting your money and protection with one hand while stabbing you in the back with the other? Would you? If you answer yes I suggest you do a serious self analysis. 

Mike Wolfson
首先,美国可以削减三分之一的军费开支。第二,我们的军队将在选择和能力上更加灵活和敏捷。第三,我们将不再被束缚在忘恩负义的国家身上,他们不愿意花钱,不愿意做出必要的牺牲来真正保卫自己,而这无疑是他们的责任,而不是我们的。第四,我们与俄罗斯的关系很可能会好得多。第五,我们可以减税,但民主党人很可能不会同意。第六,我们可以专注于自己的问题。北约已经花费了美国纳税人数万亿美元,这些钱足以解决我们的问题。我可以一直说下去,但现在你应该明白了: 北约一直以来都是我们的沉重负担。你愿意为那些不感激你为他们所做的一切的人牺牲金钱和生命吗? 他们一有机会就说你的坏话和侮辱你。他们能在接受你的钱和保护的同时,在背后捅你一刀。你愿意吗?如果你的答案是肯定的,那么我建议你做一个认真的自我分析。

David Crawford, former British Army Infantry Officer (1974-1994)
The NATO alliance is made of 29 nations. No single nation, especially the USA could disband it. NATO is not like the former Warsaw Pact , no single member irrespective of size or power can dictate alliance policy or actions.

David Crawford,前英国陆军步兵军官(1974-1994)。
北约由29个国家组成。没有任何一个国家,特别是美国可以解散它。北约不像前华沙条约组织,任何单个成员,不论其规模或权力大小,都不能决定联盟的政策或行动。

Charles Jannuzi, Associate Professor (1994-present)
NATO would collapse. The UK, France, Britain, and Italy would probably try to form some sort of alliance but, with Britain leaving the EU, it would not get very far. Russia would push on with its oil and gas pipeline projects, sell Europe much cheaper energy, and Europe would economically flourish. This would probably make the US revert to a trade war .

Charles Jannuzi,副教授(1994 -现在)。
北约将会崩溃。英国、法国和意大利可能会试图建立某种联盟,但随着英国退出欧盟,联盟不会走得太远。俄罗斯将推进其石油和天然气管道项目,向欧洲出售更便宜的能源,欧洲将在经济上蓬勃发展。这可能会让美国重新陷入贸易战。

Fredrik Payedar, studied Accounting & Economics at University of Gothenburg (2005)
Then the European union would be forced to spend 50- 100 billion more on it’s defenses per year.
This may not necessarily mean that the united states will save that much though. Will the USA stop investing in super expensive military technology for this reason? Will it decrease it huge nuclear stockpile . Will it disband it’s powerful navy? Only around 50 000 US troops are stationed in Europe so any further downsizing will have to be done elsewhere?
And then who knows what will happen in the future. Perhaps a different Russia after the next oil price crash
Will join a different, more conservative Europe. Then a new power will have been born possibly stronger than the USA.

Fredrik Payedar,曾在哥德堡大学学习会计与经济学(2005)。
那么欧盟将被迫每年花费500 - 1000亿美元用于防御。
但这并不一定意味着美国将节省这么多。美国会因此停止对超级昂贵的军事技术的投资吗? 它会减少巨大的核储备吗? 它会解散它强大的海军吗? 只有大约5万美军驻扎在欧洲,所以任何进一步的裁员将不得不在其他地方进行?
谁知道将来会发生什么。也许下一次油价暴跌后的俄罗斯会有所不同。
将加入一个不同的、更加保守的欧洲。那么一个可能比美国更强大的新力量就诞生了。
环球旅行
请文明理性发言,请不要发布违规评论,包括但不限于(诋毁、极端、敏感、歧视、色情、引战、人身攻击)等,如发现此类评论,请不要回复,直接举报。网站意见建议请点击 意见反馈
我要纠错&举报
文章地址
纠错类型
备注说明
 
我要举报
文章地址
举报理由
 
打赏评论
1、如果您喜欢此评论,可以对其打赏
2、不鼓励对违规评论(包括但不限于违法、辱骂、歧视等)进行打赏,系统将可能回收对其的打赏
充值