
Turkey ‘effectively holding 50 US nuclear bombs hostage’ at air base - aaronbrethorst
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-syria-us-nuclear-weapons-bombs-trump-war-isis-kurds-a9158416.html
======
neam
IMO; the headline is overly exaggerated. It sounds like Turkey has physically
taken control of the nuclear bombs and refuse to give up. Turkey would need to
attack a US base/military to take the bombs which would be 'effectively
declaring war' against US and pretty much rest of the world - even probably
including Russia.

There is nothing in the article to suggest this is the case. Only a single
paragraph pointing US officials hesitation: `One official told the paper the
bombs were now effectively Mr Erdogan’s hostages. It is feared that removing
the weapons could signal the end of relations between the Nato allies, while
leaving them in place could put the weapons of mass destruction at risk.`

I believe a more fair headline would be: 'US hesitant to pull missiles out of
Turkey for keeping relations intact'

edit/grammer

------
dogma1138
Turkey won’t be able to arm or use those nukes, while they might be bold they
aren’t bat shit crazy taking control of those weapons would require them to
engage and likely kill the entire protection detail and effectively start a
war with the US.

If Turkey takes those weapons the US would have to respond with an immediate
assault if not Russia will as there is no freaking way Moscow would allow 50
US nukes to go missing on their drop step, Israel might also decide to take
action but their options are limited to only a large scale air assault since
troop deployment over that area is impossible as there would be no safe ground
to retreat too.

Turkey isn’t holding anything hostage in fact I think the moment they even
jokingly mention those weapons is the moment the US expels them out of NATO
and introduces Turkey to a USMC amphibious ready group and a carrier strike
group.

~~~
panarky
_> Turkey won’t be able to arm or use those nukes_

A car is going 120 km/h through the desert toward a cliff.

But there are multiple ditches and big rocks between the car and the cliff, so
it's very unlikely it will actually drive off the cliff.

And even if it does drive off the cliff, the airbags and restraints will
probably keep the passengers from dying.

So it's extremely unlikely that everyone will die.

 _> bat shit crazy_

What's batshit crazy is that the car is driving toward the cliff in the first
place.

It's batshit crazy that the car ever left the paved highway at all.

Come to think of it, why is a car anywhere near such a dangerous area with a
trunk full of nuclear warheads and a drunk driver at the wheel?

~~~
radu_floricica
Cause people voted it so, and keep on voting this way. And no, dismissing them
as stupid isn't helping one bit. They have their reasons for doing it. They
may well be opaque, mistaken or (often) plain selfish, but there are always
reasons.

~~~
mvid
Sometimes the reason _is_ stupidity

------
jammygit
As somebody who avoids the news except during elections, what the heck is
going on? Turkey and Russia is invading Syria? The USA pulled out suddenly?
I’ve missed a lot

~~~
rurban
The USA (ie. only Trump) pulled out (Pence and everyone else are battling
this), Turkey is invading North-Syria (the autonomic Kurds areas, claiming
Rojave are PKK), and Russia came to help Syria to protect its borders. ISIS
prisoners escaped. Economic sanctions will soon end this charade, their NATO
ally status is in question and Sultan Erdogan's time will be over soon.

~~~
jammygit
Thanks!

------
GhettoMaestro
As counter-intuitive as it may sound, this is honestly a non-issue in my eyes.

Nuclear C2 (Command and Control) has provisions for these types of scenarios
through the usage of Permissive Action Links (PALs)[1].

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link)

~~~
jiveturkey
It's not simply a risk of a loose nuke.

> It is feared that removing the weapons could signal the end of relations
> between the Nato allies, while leaving them in place could put the weapons
> of mass destruction at risk.

From your wikipedia link:

> The conventional explosives needed to start the chain reaction are tailored
> to the characteristics of the fissile material in the core of the weapon. If
> the detonation does not occur exactly as planned, such as in the case of a
> misfire, a nuclear reaction is unlikely to occur—the explosion will be no
> greater than the amount of conventional explosive (although radioactive
> material—the unreacted nuclear fuel—may be dispersed).

The anti-tamper protection results in a misfire.

One does not need to have a ballistic nuke to cause unspeakable damage.
Misfire 50 nukes in a water supply, eg Lake Assad[1] and you could have a
major humanitarian disaster on your hands.

If a misfire is safe against dispersal (as some googling indicates might be
true), why not detonate them in a bunker, then retrieve the nuclear material
for incorporation into a dirty bomb?

Now, yes thanks to PAL it may not be a risk like 9/11, but it's much more than
a non-issue.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Syria)

~~~
GhettoMaestro
Let us be clear and erase some baseless speculation: a "misfire" is 100x times
better than a nuclear explosion. A "dirty bomb" is still somewhere between 10x
and 50x better.

Also for education purposes, the B61s in question are stored in hardened
"storage bunkers"[1] under the control of US personnel at the airbase.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_System)

------
jerome-jh
Trump gave up all his positions in the area, for nothing in exchange. And now
his country is being blackmailed by a much weaker one. That is even worse as
how he handled Iran. This is a mystery strategy.

