Posted on 08/19/2016 5:37:34 PM PDT by Truth29
An obscure website published a vague report Thursday making the dramatic claim that relations between Washington and Ankara had deteriorated so badly that the United States had begun moving nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania.
The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any basis at all for the report, which alleged B61 nuclear weapons were on their way to Romania’s Deveselu base. Romania’s defense ministry promptly denied it and experts dismissed the idea as illogical for technical and other reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
My response on the moving to Romania thread was that it didn’t seem to make sense, that if we were moving them, moving them to a big, long term base like Aviano would make sense.
The Russian press got it wrong? How could that happen? LOL
Council on Foreign Relation publication?
This is how they describe themselves:
Over the course of almost half a century of award-winning journalism, design, and the presentation of important new ideas from the world’s leading thinkers, Foreign Policy has established itself at the forefront of media organizations devoted to the coverage of global affairs. Through Foreign Policy Magazine, our website ForeignPolicy.com, and FP Events, the FP Group reaches an international audience of millions and has become a trusted source of insight and analysis for leaders from government, business, finance, and the academic world. FP is committed to continuing to innovate through partnerships that utilize new technologies, new media and creative new approaches to bring together those leaders to better understand and address the most urgent and important issues of our time. FP is a division of the Graham Holdings Company.”
Keep in mind these overseas bases are not sovereign territory of the US. To store Nuclear Weapons at Aviano would require the permission of the Italian government. I think that approval would be very unlikely today. Only option I see is to move them to CONUS. (Read: Continental United States for you non military types) If they haven't already been moved I would be very surprised indeed.
CFR globalist publication.
I said from the beginning of the Turkish coup that Bush should have moved them out when the Turks wouldn’t support our Iraq invasion. So close to 15 years ago. Another screw up on Bush’s record.
“I don’t there’s any Russians, and there ain’t no Yanks.
Just corporate criminals who play with tanks.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOxG1chTes
Kind of wonder about the Turkish response to removing our stuff.
Exactly; most “journos” don’t realize that you can’t store nukes in an ordinary weapons bunker. Bases with nukes have specially designed weapons storage areas (WSAs), designed to provide maximum protection and security for tactical nukes. As you indicate, the closest base in southern Europe with that type of facility (other than Incirlik) is Aviano.
Incidentally, the USAF has only one C-17 squadron that is certified to transport nukes; it is a part of the airlift wing at McChord. If someone could confirm an unusual number of flights into/out of Incirlik by crews from that unit, it might be an indicator of possible weapons movement. However, the same unit also transports conventional cargo, so the presence of aircraft/crews from that squadron is not always an accurate indicator.
BTW, I was part of the transfer of nuclear weapons from a foreign base in the early 90s. Not surprisingly, the operation required a lot of planning and intelligence support. If required, we can move nukes is a hurry, but normally, such ops are planned months in advance.
Some way, some how, this is all orchestrated to get those nukes into Islamic hands.
Oh great, Obama would probably send Kerry to negotiate only turning over half of them.
Most people don’t understand what treason is.
And pay them billions for the other half that we keep!
If Turkey try’s to take them, I think it will be after the election, if Trump wins, no, if it’s Hellery then I think they will. In any case it’s an act of war.
August 19, 2016 I consulted with George Friedman before publishing the story US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania, which I wrote together with Joel Schalit. He warned me to be careful with our sources, because nukes are obviously sensitive for the US, “and whoever talks doesn’t know and those who do know wouldn’t talk”. I kept this warning in mind, but we published the story anyway, despite the fact that the Romanian government strongly denied that the country had become home to American nuclear weapons. Of course, we quoted the Romanian government. Nuke In contrast, NATO didn’t dismiss the report, but instead referred to paragraph 53 of the Communiqué of the NATO Warsaw Summit (published on 9 July), which says: “NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. These Allies will ensure that all components of NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effective.” Though the alliance has maintained a policy of ambiguity about the presence of US nuclear weapons on its soil, the idea that Romania had joined fellow NATO members in hosting them does not seem far fetched. Why Italy, for example, and not Bucharest? Or Germany, for that matter. The fact that Washington refrained from commenting on the reports reinforces the seriousness of the claims, particularly in contrast with Romania’s denials. These are American weapons, after all. I am also aware that tensions between Turkey and the US have grown so much that moving the weapons would be a security priority for Washington. A prominent pro-government editor, Ibrahim Karagul, tweeted, “The nukes in Incirlik must be handed over to Turkey, or else, Turkey should take control of them.” Given the difficult political situation in the country, particularly for the press, Karagul was echoing statements already made in Ankara. And a member of Russia’s upper house of parliament suggested that Turkey could provide its Incirlik air base for Russian Air Force jets in their campaign across the border in Syria. “Turkey could provide the Incirlik base to the Russian Aerospace Forces for its use in counterterrorism operations [in Syria]. This could become a logical continuation of Turkish President [Recep Tayyip] ErdoÄŸan’s step toward Russia,” Senator Viktor Ozerov, a member of the Russian Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti on 16 August. From my perspective, it was clear that following the foiled coup attempt on 15 July, the US (and NATO) are losing Turkey, and that Russia is building a new Moscow-Ankara-Teheran axis, with enormous geopolitical consequences for the Western alliance, and its regional allies. I’m aware that US Vice President Joe Biden will visit Turkey on 24 August in what may be a last attempt to save what can be saved. I wish him luck, but I’m not optimistic. Without a doubt, the situation is fraught with tension, enough to generate heated debate amongst political analysts, who for the most part, agree on such matters. Hence, the op-ed which George Friedman published on his website Geopolitical Futures, in which he contends that our article bears the hallmarks of disinformation. He sent me the text in advance, and I thank him for that. Friedman does raise important questions, which I summarise below. “If true, it was a major story. Clearly, by journalistic standards, it was well beyond the threshold required for publication. There were two sources, who I will assume were seemingly good sources. They obviously required anonymity, because to tell this they had to be breaking someone’s rules on secrecy. And the story was obviously important to the European public who the journalists serve,” Friedman writes. Friedman argues that the location of US nuclear weapons is extremely classified, because if any enemies knew the location of the nuclear weapons, they could destroy them with even conventional weapons. Therefore, he believes, no serious source would disclose information about moving such weapons, because they would face thirty years in jail. He also states that “sometimes 10 sources are all wrong or lying”. And that the beneficiary of the story is clearly Russia. Friedman also says that in this case, neither of the two sources had to be working for the Russians. “There are probably many degrees of separation between Russia and the sources. It would be impossible to trace the information back,” he concludes. I still think that I was not manipulated, as the two sources are wholly unrelated. They didn’t say much (I wish they had) and cannot be considered whistleblowers. But given the larger background, it makes sense that the Americans would want to move away their nukes from Incirlik. The alleged choice of Romania doesn’t surprise me. Bucharest is a staunch US ally. This is where the US missile shield is located, and there is infrastructure to accommodate advanced tactical weaponry, such as the AEGIS anti-missile system it was built to host. And indeed, the NATO summit decision to ensure that the US nuclear deterrent remains safe is a commitment for countries like Romania to play their part, and take risks like this when asked to by the alliance. Another question is how Russia would react to moving those nukes even closer to its borders. But they would not react to a press article, I assume. Moscow would have its own information, and clarify issues in bilateral contacts. We didn’t follow George Friedman’s advice to be more careful with our sources, because that would have amounted to self-censorship. I think, and our publisher agrees, that the chief beneficiary of the story is our readership, which cares deeply about such issues. Even if we are not 100% correct, I’m convinced that the most of what we were told is true, and worthy of publication. Given the speed of the geopolitical developments, it is healthier to provide some insight before events overwhelm us, than to pretend we didn’t know. http://reuniting-europe.blogactiv.eu/2016/08/19/us-nukes-in-turkey-the-story-behind-the-story/
The only “moving of resources” I’ve seen on TV is about our heavy bombers being moved to Guam .. because of the issues with China’s plan to try to have a monopoly in the area around China and Japan; severely limiting our moves in that area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.