Today the Turkish Haberturk news agency leaked the disturbing news that the U.S. has 70 B61 nuclear bombs stored at America's Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.
The U.S. military leases Incirlik from the Turkish government.
According to the report, the nukes are more or less stranded there because the Islamist regime in Turkey refuses to allow planes to land at Incirlik that are capable of transporting them, in spite of repeated U.S. requests. Presumably, the Turks aren't allowing them to be transported by land or sea either.
The obvious conclusion is that the Turks see the nukes at Incirlik as a ready made Turkish nuclear arsenal should they decide to simply confiscate them in the future. The F-16's we sold Turkey are fully capable of transporting them to a different facility under their control, or to a target for that matter.
This story gives rise to several questions. If it's true that the Turks are refusing to allow planes capable of moving these nuclear bombs to land at Incirlik, that would most of the more useful types of U.S. combat planes, thus making the base useless for most of our purposes. It's a lot more probable that the Turks are simply refusing to allow the nukes to be moved, period, and the Obama Administration is going along with it.
Given that Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan is one of President Obama's favorite foreign leaders, that's fairly plausible.
One also has to wonder what we're doing about this.
One of the many consequences of our participating in the overthrow of Libyan leader Moamar Khaddaffi is an increased appetite in the Middle East for nuclear weapons. Many of the region's leaders noted that Khaddaffi gave up his nuclear weapons and started cooperating with the U.S. during the Bush Administration, but was sold out by an American president just the same. The lesson is not lost on them, and I doubt Tayyip Erdogan didn't catch on to the obvious and start wanting nukes pronto. especially with neighboring Iran pressing steadily towards nuclear capability.
I only hope President Obama had the foresight to order someone to quietly disarm the weapons an dmake them useless if we weren't wiling to simply go in, seize our property and take it elsewhere.
The idea of the Islamist government of Turkey being nuclear armed when they already have the largest conventional forces in NATO outside of our own is not a comforting thought.
8 comments:
with the delivery systems transport capability that we have, i can't imagine storing nukes anywhere outside missouri.
what member of mensa gave that order?
regardless, of who gave the order, hussein is in the oval office. for now.
smartest president 'eva.
let's see them transcripts.
The newspaper story you linked says nothing about "nukes are more or less stranded there because the Islamist regime in Turkey refuses to allow planes to land at Incirlik"
Judging by the picture of the airplane, you could probably even take it out in a truck.
You're correct Anonymous.The linked story doesn't say that, and as you'll notice, I find it questionable.
However, other news sources, including the Haberturk original, (Turkish only) make that point, so I included it:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107114438
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=72221&frid=22&seccatid=55&cid=22&fromval=1
http://taghribnews.com/vdcfmmdyvw6dy0a.r7iw.html
I agree with you, the weapons could be moved by other means and transported by sea. However, if the Islamist government of Turkey isn't allowing the removal of the weapons...
That was my main point.
Regards,
Rob
Have you actually opened the Haberturk page? It's a total tabloid, like The Sun. The English sources you quote are the Hezbollah Al Manar and Iranian state run Fars Agency.
Anonymous,
Thank you for your opinion of Haberturk.And the Sun. And thank you for giving me information I already knew about where two of the links originated. Well spotted!
I believe Hurriyet also carried this, along with a number of other sources but I'll let you do your own searching.
Not to put words in your mouth, but what you're really saying is that these reports are false and the nukes aren't in Turkey.
Any proof of that? Actual proof?
I'd much rather you were right than me in this matter.
I am saying, that stating the US has 70 B61 bombs in the turkish territory, that the Turkish government is hoarding on its territory despite the wishes of US government, is more of a James Bond plot than a realistic scenario, and that it is a charge too grave to be levelled on the basis of what appears to be reports from very sketchy media (which you could have linked in your original post, but that's obviously not a cardinal sin). Even the "70 bombs in Turkey" information comes from Voice of Russia.
OK, you have no proof.
But why is this unrealistic?
We know that Tayyip Erdogan is President Obama's BFF among foreign leaders, and the White House strategy generally is to appease Islamists.So a scenario where the Obama Administration keeps something like this quiet is hardly unimaginable.
We also know that Erdogan has ambitions for making Turkey a major power in the region and the world.
And aside from that, Turkey might very well be seeking nukes observing what Iran is up to, and given that Turkey's economy is facing a huge and disastrous bubble in the near future, Erdogan might well be looking for some 'expansion' as a distraction.
I don't see this as a 'James Bond' plot at all.
Agreed. This is most definitely not a "James Bond plot." If this were any one else but the Obama Administration or the incompetent boobs at the CIA or even the politically correct "we love Islam" leaders of the military, I would think it would be experential common sense that a method would be put in place to disarm these weapons before they could fall into the hands of hostile forces. With this incompetent bunch I'm not so sure.
Supporting the removal of Khaddaffit does not seem to have been such a good idea. I was wrong in my initial assessment that it would require a huge infusion of US forces to do this. Perhaps it was a similar situation to Egypt.
In the case of Egypt, Mubarak was gone. Once the military chose to stand down, his fate was sealed. There was nothing America could have done to preserve his government. The same may have been true with regards to Libya. Esentially the rebels were going to overthrow Khaddaffi even if we tried to preserve his government. Knowing this and knowing that all deals made with Khaddaffi for oil and for cooperation against Al Qaeda were over when he fell any way which was likely inevitable no matter what we did NATO nations along with the US opted to intervene on the side that was going to win in order to preserve oil interests.
While this does make sense and is understandable on some level, these oil deals are primarily a Western European interests. As such, America should have stayed out of it. If we don't intervene, Khaddaffi falls but it takes longer and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Al Qaeda like organizations would likely be weakened in the struggle. As such, they would be much easier for us to deal with on all levels than they are now.
If the Europeans wish to fight on behalf of the rebles to preserve their oil interests, this is their perogarive and perhaps even their just interests to do so. They and the rebels would have likely prevailed. The Europeans get to preserve oil interests and all parties are weakened somewhat in the long run making them easier for America to work with.
All of this brings up a larger question. "If we could win the war on terror, grow our economy, balance our budget, and pay down the national debt without liberating a single Arab, should we do it?" I say the emphatic answer to this is "yes we do." The fact that no one ina position of power is either willing or able to ask this very important question is more than a bit disturbing.
Post a Comment