Noone regret deploying/development of strategic or tactical nuclear bombs. I am also the one who support Turkey to reach those capabilities with my heart but I am talking about a different story. We live in a century that Let using Tactical-Strategical Nuclear Bombs over enemy cities aside, Using Cluster Bombs on point targets in BF is prohibited with international agreements so Using Nuclear Bombs isn't such an easy turn for countries Even If you have so My priority is different...
Indeed sir, though one might argue that if you're at the right side of the divide and by all current world dynamics, you are; wouldn't a tactical nuclear capability be more of an insurance policy against any exceptional circumstances that may arise. I mean, in the foreseeable future I don't think that Turkey may engage in an all out war but that your entanglements are going to be pretty darn localized and against a proportionately poorly armed adversary. As such in such a context you don't need any substantial further conventional military expenditure either because neither the Kurds, or the Taliban or the Greeks or some obscure warlord in countless dozen countries out there are remotely comparable with the existing capabilities of the Turkish Armed Forces. Why then does Turkey invest for the future...why then does anyone do that ? Answer : Because you never know what might be lurking around the curve and preparedness is crucial for survival...so if Turkey does develop conventional nuclear capability she'd be preparing herself a contingency against any possible, however improbable, situation where she may be called onto use them. In such a situation not only Turkey's membership of NATO bring naught in value but she'd be facing an existentialist threat.
Now a strategic nuke is more a bluff than a deterrent because, to use Pakistan and India as an analogy, whereas neither of the two countries can ever use one to take out either's cities, a tactical nuke is a completely different ball game...where the deterrent part gets truly pronounced at a localized level. India may not take Pakistan's bluff of nuking Delhi quite seriously but she sure as hell would think a thousands times before crossing the International Border over to my Land, because I have tactical nukes focused towards them. Would that escalate the situation - Yes, would that bring about international condemnation - Yes, would it bring about certain sanctions - Yes, but would it ensure that Pakistan isn't severed in two because of advancing Indian Armies - A resounding Yes, and would it induce a disproportionate response of nuking my city because I used a battlefield nuke on their flotilla blockading my only port - No. And would the Indians factoring in my use of a tactical nuke in their war plans think that any aggression against Pakistan has the propensity of inducing greater casualties then had we conventional weapons only, abandon the plan altogether - Almost definitely. Case in point would be '02 and later the Mumbai Attacks where neither side attacked the other despite all the buildup at the borders and high alert because the stakes are far too great.
As such I believe that if Turkey truly wants to roll with the Big Boys - she has the economy, she has the conventional forces, she has the national cohesion and a nuclear capability would be equally imperative, because perception matters - don't use it...but a tactical one induces enough fear to make the cost of any probable skirmish against you to far exceed any possible gains to be had.
Plus, then theres the other perception that goes with a nuke - the haves getting respect from the have-nots and how much that appreciates your political currency.
