Posted on 10/14/2019 4:11:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why risk it? Even if NATO wants the nukes in Europe, Erdogan’s unstable regime is 68 miles from Syria, the hottest conflict zone on earth.
When President Donald Trump and other heads of state meet at this week’s NATO Summit it might be a good time to discuss the wisdom of keeping 50 U.S. thermonuclear weapons in Turkey, just 70 miles from Syria, the most intense combat zone on the planet.
Each of the B61 gravity bombs stored at Incirlik Air Base, 68 miles from the Syrian border have a maximum yield of 170 kilotons, or 10 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But these bombs also have a “dial-a-yield” capability that allows them to be set to explode at various levels, down to less than one kiloton of force. They are the vestige of the thousands of battlefield weapons once deployed by the United States and the Soviet Union to wage nuclear war in Europe. Almost all have been withdrawn from deployment except these at Incirlik and approximately 100 other B-61’s stored at NATO bases in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands.
However, unlike those airfields, there are no aircraft based in Turkey capable of carrying the American nuclear weapons stored there. In a crisis, planes would have to fly from other U.S. bases, assuming they could be freed from their other assigned conventional missions. The actual strategy for their use is hazy at best.
“Today, the symbolism of these bombs is far more important than their military utility,” says nuclear historian Eric Schlosser. “Missiles carrying nuclear warheads reach targets much faster, more reliably, and with much greater accuracy.” Rather, the case for keeping the weapons is the nuclear equivalent of the old phrase about the purpose of NATO, “to keep America in, Russia out and Germany down.” In this case, the bombs are there to demonstrate that America’s nukes are in, Russian nukes will be kept out, and German nukes are unnecessary.
Is this symbolism worth the risk? Warning signs are mounting about the security of the weapons as U.S.-Turkish relations deteriorate and the war in Syria intensifies.
Just last year, the United States temporarily lost access to Incirlik during the attempted coup against Turkish President Recep Erdogan. Senior Turkish officers in charge of the base were said to be among the leaders of the coup, and were accused of flying missions from the base in its support. Turkish forces loyal to Erdogan surrounded Incirlik and cut off power for days, effectively trapping some 2,500 U.S. servicemen stationed there — and the 50 nuclear weapons. A week later, the base was again under siege, surrounded this time by thousands of anti-American protesters who burned American flags and demanded the government close the base.
Erdogan’s rule since the coup attempt has grown increasingly authoritarian. His forces killed over 250 people during the uprising, wounded more than 1,400 and arrested almost 3,000. Since then he has purged more than 2,700 judges, detained nearly 50,000 people, including many soldiers, journalists, lawyers, police officers, academics, and Kurdish politicians, sacked 120,000 public servants and vowed to “clean all state institutions of the virus of Fethullah Gülen supporters” loyal to the cleric Erdogan claims was behind the coup.
As Elmira Bayrasli wrote in Defense One, Erdogan holds his own country “hostage for his political benefits.”
Even if you believe the United States should keep tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, is Turkey a safe place to do so?
Since the attempted coup, Turkish forces carried out airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, who are armed by the United States to fight ISIS. If media reports are correct, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn blocked a plan to use Kurdish forces to spearhead an attack on the ISIS capital of Raqqa, perhaps at the behest of Turkey.
Most recently, during Erdogan’s visit to Washington, his personal bodyguards punched, choked, and kicked peaceful demonstrators outside the Turkish Embassy. Astonishingly, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry on Monday summoned the U.S. ambassador in Ankara to lodge a formal protest over the alleged “aggressive actions” of U.S. police in protecting the demonstrators, further straining relations.
Meanwhile, U.S. combat operations in Syria are intensifying. U.S.-led forces last week fended off an attack by Iranian-affiliated militia fighters operating in Syria and, according to the Pentagon, ignoring even Russia’s request to stand down. The battle for Raqqa is now back on track, and the most violent fighting of the war could occur in the coming months. As ISIS faces elimination, might it’s fighters strike out across the border inside Turkey?
Can we be sure that America’s nuclear bombs at Incirlik are secure? We cannot. There is growing concern that Incirlik is vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Last March, military families were evacuated from southern Turkey, mainly from Incirlik Air Base, as a result of security concerns from ISIS activity threatening the area. Major security upgrades to base are now underway, including around the vaults used to store the nuclear weapons. But new fences are not the answer. “The security risk of basing U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe,” warns former NSC staffer Steve Andreasen and Isabelle Williams, “clearly demonstrate the case for consolidating U.S. nuclear weapons in the United States.”
Why risk it? No member of NATO will doubt our resolve or the credibility of our nuclear assurances if we pull 50 dangerously exposed nuclear weapons from Turkey. They may actually breathe a sigh of relief.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joe Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation. In 2004, he co-wrote “WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications,” the definitive independent analysis of how U.S. officials systematically misrepresented the threat of Iraq’s WMD
Triggers went the way of the Dodo a long time ago. The devices have been sealed units for many moons.
The B-61 series was one of the several systems I worked on with the Labs for maintenance and modifications.
Ok, so it was written 2 years ago,
And by a leftist.
1. Has anything changed for
the better in Turkey?
2. That the author is a leftist as you call him makes his argument invalid?
Letting religious fanatics who believe it is their moral responsibility to make way for the end of the world is extremely high risk
Dear President Trump,
It would go a long way in instilling friendship and trust with Israel, if these nukes and their triggers would be delivered (separately) as a gift to the Government of Israel.
Do this and watch talking heads explode.
I’m pretty sure we relocated those 50 nukes. Maybe to Romania.
Your view and mine. But is it any worse than the socialist outlook of control also that creates the same problems from the opposite direction which is nothing more than Islam with Armani suits?
The public in the US has not been brought aware of what the government actually does in so many thesis that this is nothing any different than our own trash hole local. This is why the socialists win because they can come up with more ways to create problems that keep the GOP apologizing or conceding and taking blame for than the GOP can take credit for their successes. It’s been going on for over a century.
Can the Turks get at the devices? Not and have them workable, no. They will be destroyed long before they get through the front door. And if they go far enough, when you consider what a device is, they will be written off.
A device, or reactor for that matter, is nothing more than a repository for enriched or enriching uranium. And we’ve had uranium and weapons stored in the US for many years no one in the populous knows where or even that the storage exists. They don’t care. They figure it is but as long as it doesn’t bite them on the keyster, no big deal.
So when the US is leaving turning out the lights, there will be nothing to work with other than the actual uranium they could get out of Niger, South American, Korea, and other places it exists in the ground.
rwood
I would choose american socialism over an Iranian ICBM and nuclear warhead in San Deigo. Socialism is subject to being overturned, Death is not.
Says the new york slimes. Its doubtful those nukes are still there.
What kind of question is that? Has a Leftist ever told the truth to anyone? Yes, it makes his argument invalid.
Iran doesn’t have anything that can even travel over 1300 miles. They have nothing that can hit the continental US.
Socialism is right here already and will destroy our country financially and philosophically which would weaken our respect from other countries and promote more terrorism and deaths. It would bring the violence back to our shores to include some of the suitcase bombs that can act a lot like the big guys you fear. Action/reaction.
rwood
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.