What's new

US nukes at Turkey base at risk of seizure: report

Syed Asif Bukhari

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
746
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
upload_2016-8-15_11-30-18.png
© Emrah Gurel/ AP Photo FILE - In this July 28, 2015 file photo, a U.S. Navy plane maneuvers on the runway of the Incirlik Air Base, in Adana, in the outskirts of the city of Adana, southeastern Turkey
Dozens of US nuclear weapons stored at a Turkish air base near Syria are at risk of being captured by "terrorists or other hostile forces," a Washington think tank claimed Monday.

Critics have long been alarmed by America's estimated stockpile of about 50 nuclear bombs at Incirlik in southern Turkey, just 70 miles (110 kilometers) from the border with war-torn Syria.

The issue took on fresh urgency last month following the attempted coup in Turkey, in which the base's Turkish commander was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the plot.

"Whether the US could have maintained control of the weapons in the event of a protracted civil conflict in Turkey is an unanswerable question," said Monday's report from the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank working to promote peace.

Incirlik is a vital base for the US-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, with the strategically located facility affording drones and warplanes fast access to IS targets.

But the Pentagon in March ordered families of US troops and civilian personnel stationed in southern Turkey to quit the region due to security fears.

"From a security point of view, it's a roll of the dice to continue to have approximately 50 of America's nuclear weapons stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey," report co-author Laicie Heeley said.

"There are significant safeguards in place. ... But safeguards are just that, they don't eliminate risk. In the event of a coup, we can't say for certain that we would have been able to maintain control," she told AFP.

- 'Avoided disaster so far' -

While the Pentagon does not discuss where it stores nuclear assets, the bombs are believed to be kept at Incirlik as a deterrent to Russia and to demonstrate America's commitment to NATO, the 28-member military alliance that includes Turkey.

The Incirlik nuke issue has been the subject of renewed debate in the United States since the coup attempt.

"While we've avoided disaster so far, we have ample evidence that the security of US nuclear weapons stored in Turkey can change literally overnight," Steve Andreasen, director for defense policy and arms control on the White House National Security Council staff from 1993 to 2001, wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times last week.

Kori Schake, a fellow at the California-based Hoover Institution, noted in a written debate in the New York Times that "American nuclear forces cannot be used without codes, making the weapons impossible to set off without authorization."

"The fact that nuclear weapons are stationed in Turkey does not make them vulnerable to capture and use, even if the country were to turn hostile to the United States," she argued.

The Pentagon declined to comment on questions arising from the Stimson study.

"We do not discuss the location of strategic assets. The (Department of Defense) has taken appropriate steps to maintain the safety and security of our personnel, their families, and our facilities, and we will continue to do so," it said in a statement.

The Incirlik concerns were highlighted as part of a broader paper into the Pentagon's nuclear modernization program, through which the United States would spend hundreds of billions of dollars to update its atomic arsenal.

The authors argue that a particular type of bomb -- the B61 gravity bomb -- should be immediately removed from Europe, where 180 of the weapons are kept in Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The report can be viewed at: http://u.afp.com/ZV9i
 
.
The risk is minimal. they can be remotely detonated if they were in any danger...i mean a conventional detonation that would render the bombs useless, not a full ignition.
 
.
The risk is minimal. they can be remotely detonated if they were in any danger...i mean a conventional detonation that would render the bombs useless, not a full ignition.

Is it just me or does it sound very strange that everyone knows where US nukes are stationed in Turkey.

It would be Russia's 1st target with bombs that would explode underground if a war breaks out.

If I were to guess I'd say there are no nukes at all in incirlik airbase, that they are in other bases probably in the west Izmir maybe.

Or even Greece or some other country that Russia and China doesn't know has the nukes.

This just doesn't feel right, if everyone knows where the nukes are they could go after them, not just other super powers but also terrorists like isis.
 
.
Is it just me or does it sound very strange that everyone knows where US nukes are stationed in Turkey.

It would be Russia's 1st target with bombs that would explode underground if a war breaks out.

If I were to guess I'd say there are no nukes at all in incirlik airbase, that they are in other bases probably in the west Izmir maybe.

Or even Greece or some other country that Russia and China doesn't know has the nukes.

This just doesn't feel right, if everyone knows where the nukes are they could go after them, not just other super powers but also terrorists like isis.
stay calm friend . no country is mad enough to attack installation containing nuclear arsenal . at least , such kind of agreement (to not attack nuclear installation) exists between Pakistan and India . In fact , Both Pakistan and India regularly shares list of nuclear installation with each other.
 
.
stay calm friend . no country is mad enough to attack installation containing nuclear arsenal . at least , such kind of agreement (to not attack nuclear installation) exists between Pakistan and India . In fact , Both Pakistan and India regularly shares list of nuclear installation with each other.

But aren't high value military targets supposed to be top secret?

I think this is very strange, doesn't make sense.

Something seems wrong.
 
.
The risk is minimal. they can be remotely detonated if they were in any danger...i mean a conventional detonation that would render the bombs useless, not a full ignition.
How about you get the f*ck out of Turkey? You can stick your nukes up your a*s and detonate there. However, you like. Why risking? No need.
 
Last edited:
.
I think this weapons are dangerous it could be used against us

you never know what those mass murderers would do
 
.
How about you get the f*ck out of Turkey? You can stick your nukes up your a*s and detonate there.

You're pretty angry aren't you?

TiZgyzHOF3.png


However, you like. Why risking? No need.


We'll take them out if we have to but right now I stick by there being minimal risk. We can always render the nukes inoperable by detonation. Seeing as there is no hurry to take them out as of now, I think the establishment agrees with my assessment that they are at minimal risk.

I think this weapons are dangerous it could be used against us

you never know what those mass murderers would do

please :rolleyes: don't let your anti-Americanism cloud your critical thinking like that. Next you'll be telling us we're responsible for any earthquakes or droughts or fires you get.

God Damn those Americans and their Earthquake machines!:cheesy:

More seriously Turkey is free to tell the US to remove the nukes, just like Germany is free to demand closure of US military bases in Germany. If this was such a concern for Turkey why haven't they done so? Evidently they don't feel its a concern.
 
. .
You're pretty angry aren't you?

TiZgyzHOF3.png





We'll take them out if we have to but right now I stick by there being minimal risk. We can always render the nukes inoperable by detonation. Seeing as there is no hurry to take them out as of now, I think the establishment agrees with my assessment that they are at minimal risk.



please :rolleyes: don't let your anti-Americanism cloud your critical thinking like that. Next you'll be telling us we're responsible for any earthquakes or droughts or fires you get.

God Damn those Americans and their Earthquake machines!:cheesy:

More seriously Turkey is free to tell the US to remove the nukes, just like Germany is free to demand closure of US military bases in Germany. If this was such a concern for Turkey why haven't they done so? Evidently they don't feel its a concern.
Yeah, they are pretty much angry like rest of the Turks and me....you are harboring the most dangerous terrorist leader we have ever faced in your country.
 
.
please :rolleyes: don't let your anti-Americanism cloud your critical thinking like that. Next you'll be telling us we're responsible for any earthquakes or droughts or fires you get.

:disagree: you can clearly say that we dont have to be afraid of america? you can say that they dont want to harm us? you can say that they dont arm groubs against us who kill our citizens and security forces? you can say they dont make coups araound the world? you can say a country who used the big bomb twice would never use it again? in my eyes US is far more dangerous than china russia or north korea.. this countries never used the bomb

anti americanism my ***.. I am just realistic about our so called allies.. but if it makes you more comfort I dont think that US is a bigger problem than germany is.. this germans are going nuts..

wtf where does your erthquake theory come from whats wrong with you? o_O
 
.
Lol who's going to take those nukes by force? The teletubbies? I now know that I will become a journalist if my business fails: all you do is write bullshit that fits public narrative and plays on public fear. Dumbasses
 
.
The risk is minimal. they can be remotely detonated if they were in any danger...i mean a conventional detonation that would render the bombs useless, not a full ignition.

Remote detonate ? Sorry guy, but that's not how it works. I suggest you watch a movie that is more factual or you know, read up on the weapon.
 
.
Yeah, they are pretty much angry like rest of the Turks and me....you are harboring the most dangerous terrorist leader we have ever faced in your country.

Well i'm not personally harboring him so taking his anger out on me is pointless. :coffee:

He and you can feel free to do so, but ill just laugh at the misplaced anger.

Regardless, if the evidence exists and Turkey passes it on he will be extradited. It will probably not be a quick process though.

Feel free to be angry about it, but the US federal legal system is slow as molasses.
 
.
Well i'm not personally harboring him so taking his anger out on me is pointless. :coffee:

He and you can feel free to do so, but ill just laugh at the misplaced anger.

Regardless, if the evidence exists and Turkey passes it on he will be extradited. It will probably not be a quick process though.

Feel free to be angry about it, but the US federal legal system is slow as molasses.
Imagine that we were harboring Osama Bin Laden, would ask for concrete evidence and saying extradition process will take years.

Than it's inevitable that Turkey - US relations will deteriorate.

What's more funny is, Russia jumping on the opportunity.
Turkey could provide its Incirlik airbase for the Russian Aerospace Forces jets in the anti-terrorist campaign in Syria, member of Russia’s upper house of parliament Igor Morozov said Tuesday.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom