removing nukes from turkey

[dilbert firestorm]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...ey_109709.html

they should do so. looks like the U.S. generals are getting nervous with Ergodan's Gulen crackdown which has now extended to businesses.

anyway, why are the nukes in turkey in the first place, considering the fact they cannot be used?????

Turkey does not allow bombers like B-52 on their bases, so those nukes cannot be used immediately, so they have to be shipped to another base outside Turkey.

this is not a rational policy let alone make sense tactically.

[Yssup Rider]

SPAM

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...ey_109709.html

Turkey does not allow bombers like B-52 on their bases, so those nukes cannot be used immediately, so they have to be shipped to another base outside Turkey.

They don't need B-52s.

"Turkey remains a part of the nuclear strike mission, but its nuclear capable F-16s, now based at Balikesir and Akinci, would act as escorts for forward deployed American aircraft, rather than carry the weapons. Turkey, for economic reasons, chose to decertify its pilots, leaving it with aircraft technically capable of carrying and releasing nuclear weapons, but without the trained pilots to do so. Thus, during a time of conflict, Turkey would rely on the United States to carry the bombs at Incirlik. Yet, after changing the terms of basing agreements during the 1990s, the United States no longer permanently stations a nuclear fighter wing in Turkey; instead, the air wing rotates through the base at sporadic intervals from different U.S. air bases in Europe."

http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/nuc...son-you-think/

"Diego Garcia"

Another way of looking at it is Turkey may be "cannon fodder."

[gnadfly]

I always thought the nukes in Turkey were sitting atop missiles and the nukes in Pakistan were being guarded by US troops. I wonder what the truth really is.

Either way, we need the nukes out of both countries. The whole nuke sub/long range bomber/ICBM triad philosophy need to be rethunk.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I always thought the nukes in Turkey were sitting atop missiles and the nukes in Pakistan were being guarded by US troops. I wonder what the truth really is.

Either way, we need the nukes out of both countries. The whole nuke sub/long range bomber/ICBM triad philosophy need to be rethunk.

The missile systems were removed long ago ... both are stored in "secure" hard bunkers. The Turkish bombs ... are just that ..gravity bombs..... and need aircraft capable of delivering them with qualified pilots..... it's not reported if they are "smart" bombs ... and can be guided to the destination. Their purpose was to stop a ground assault and buy some time for Turkish forces to be reinforced via NATO (effectively the U.S.).

Given the current goofballs attitude (and his heiress apparent) they will have cobwebs on them for their "natural" life. They are not a deterrent. The decision to remove and use other assets is always dependent upon the existence of alternative delivery systems and the ability to utilize them. For instance we've had carrier groups down for retrofitting and refurbishing for years ... with the result of fewer alternatives ... Additionally the "reviews" are reporting shortage of parts and supplies for existing aircraft and a seemingly lack of continual upgrading to stay ahead of the technology curve.

Example: It was reported in the 911 hearings that Clinton did not send in troops into Afghanistan/Pakistan because he could not get "flyover" rights into Western Afghanistan ... meaning we lacked the logistical ability to transport and supply with protection inland.

The lack of preparedness and lack of alternative force choices will dictate the worst response in a disaster scenario to avoid a catastrophic result to NATO forces, which means are inability to respond with conventional force will mandate a nuclear response. And coupled with an announced unwillingness to project a nuclear solution, sets the stage for a mandatory nuclear response, when a conventional response might slow things down until supplemental forces can arrive to support the NATO front.

If you recall the Kuwait invasion followed a vague conversation with U.S. diplomatic personnel that led Saddam to believe the U.S. would not oppose an invasion of Kuwait. Those kinds of vague and nonspecific communications create misunderstandings, particularly when the recipient has a mindset in the wrong direction to begin.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I always thought the nukes in Turkey were sitting atop missiles and the nukes in Pakistan were being guarded by US troops. I wonder what the truth really is.

Either way, we need the nukes out of both countries. The whole nuke sub/long range bomber/ICBM triad philosophy need to be rethunk.

I think U.S. needs to go with the Sub/bomber route as these assets are not in a fixed location.

the ICBM system isn't working too well personnel wise. 2 guys in a bunker? You'd go insane in there.

the minuteman III missile (a late 1960 - early 1970's system) which carries 3 warheads, never understood why they didn't retire this missile when the MX (a newer system) which carries 10 warheads was retired in 1990's or early 2000.

Personally, I think we need to retire the ICBM system. If they insist on maintaining the Triad, they need to think about updating the existing trident missile system for use in missile silos.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I always thought the nukes in Turkey were sitting atop missiles and the nukes in Pakistan were being guarded by US troops. I wonder what the truth really is.

the nukes in Pakistan are not guarded by U.S. troops. Pakistan owns those nukes and their military guards them.

[LexusLover]

The "sub/bomber" route depends on avoiding detection and range issues.

The more effective offensive, preemptive strike is a combined mobile force that can penetrate the defensive "wall" undetected to strike specific strategic military targets that pose a potential threat from a first strike. The adequate preemptive strike has to be able to overwhelm any defensive technology ... If you read the article I linked it speaks of the "use" of the Turkish bombs .. which are merely for battlefield tactical use to slow down an invading ground force. The are not meant to make a crippling blow to the Russian military complex and its ability to launch a successful nuclear strike on the U.S. or European countries.

Obaminable's administration took an option off the table by failing to complete the missile system in Eastern Europe as an appeasement to the Russians. Remember the "let me be more flexible" after the elections in 2012?

IMO a lesson from the 1990-1 Kuwait situation was the military capabilities of this country were demonstrated openly, and when "smart bombs" starting making cross-hair hits on vehicles and buildings the message was loud and clear. The Soviets were observing and the personal nature of having the cross-hairs on their asses from 1,000's of feet in the air ... and the obliterating result .... was devastating to morale. The Soviet tank commanders had been deceived about our ability and technology. The world was watching: We had it and we'd use it.

Not today.

They watch ... we don't have it and if we did won't use it!

This pussy in the White House and his know-nothing SOS (either one of them) have created the wrong image of the U.S. in a hostile world. It has made the world less safe for us and everyone else, who depended on the U.S. defending them.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Pakistan owns those nukes and their military guards them.

Who are "supervised"!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who are "supervised"!

Saudis.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Saudis.

No.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No.

LOL!

Saudis paid for those nukes and are paying Pakistan to make, maintain, & guard them. there is no other supervision by american authorities other than Pakistani & saudi officials.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

LOL!

Saudis paid for those nukes and are paying Pakistan to make, maintain, & guard them. there is no other supervision by american authorities other than Pakistani & saudi officials.

Did I say "american authorities"? The U.S. knows exactly where they are, who is looking after them, and what they had for their morning meal. Probably have 8x10 glosses of the "changing of the guard"! Saudis .... ? That's every reason in the world to keep a close eye.

Do you know anyone who trusts the Saudis?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did I say "american authorities"? The U.S. knows exactly where they are, who is looking after them, and what they had for their morning meal. Probably have 8x10 glosses of the "changing of the guard"! Saudis .... ? That's every reason in the world to keep a close eye.

Do you know anyone who trusts the Saudis?

No, but gnadfly did.

I may have misunderstood your "supervised" question unless my last answer satisfied your question.

[Jackie S]

Do these "nukes", which I assume are fusion bombs, have their fission triggers installed?