This is why the U.S. should withdraw the plan to provide Turkey with F-35’s. They are now too unreliable as an ally.
That does sound like a dumb idea to me, unless they are F-100s with “F-35” painted on them.
If that’s a concern, the nukes kept at Incirlick would certainly seem to be an issue, as well.
I would imagine they are well guarded against curious Turks.
Does the US admit to nuclear weapons on airbases in other countries? I don’t think they admit they are on aircraft carriers.
I don’t believe we’ve had nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers since the mid-90’s.
There are also rumors that the U.S is already scaling back some deployments in Turkey.
*“U.S. officials are loath to discuss the location of nuclear weapons, but Air Force budget documents state that “special weapons” are stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. That’s a delicate way of saying nuclear weapons, as Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies pointed out Monday on Twitter.”
*
Here’s how it went down when Cyprus acquired the S-300 system from Russia (and then soon transferred them to Greece when Turkey freaked out about it.):
Report: Israel practiced defeating S-300 Russian defense system in Greece
In another example of syncronicity, Greece used to be another place that housed U.S. nukes. It wasn’t too long after Russian hardware was deployed in the area that that arrangement came to an end.
Gee, they might need them there at some point.
Hopefully you weren’t holding your breath. Basically, in a move that will surprise no one (or shouldn’t), the Russians and Syrians have denied the team entry into the area because there are still ‘security issues to be worked out’, according to the BBC. We shall see how long they keep the team cooling their heels…perhaps long enough to clean up the site so it’s not so messy when the team gets there.
Bodies will be contaminated, sites will be contaminated, the non-dead will be suffering, this isn’t a small oil spill. It’s a chemical attack right.
NM…I didn’t see the BANNED status.
AIUI, the US Navy circumvents the issue of “no nuclear weapons permitted aboard when sailing into New Zealand” by disassembling the weapons so they are technically only “components”, but could be assembled into war-ready weapons in a cinch if need be.
As far as I know, the team STILL hasn’t gotten into the area to do their testing. Last report I read said that the team was attack by gun fire from unknown sources and had to turn back (again). So, still no word on the ‘proof’, at least as far as I can tell. If someone else has any update on this, feel free to post it.
I’m a little surprised they’re even still trying. What difference, at this point, does it make? The USA / UK / France have already imposed whatever consequences they’ve decided they wanted to impose, Syria / Russia decided to take their lumps and not escalate the situation, and here we are.
Well, proof that Syria did indeed use chemical weapons (and Russia tried to cover it up) would give the allies a stronger hand in the future, while conversely a lack of proof (assuming the team ever even gets there, which seems unlikely) would have the opposite effect and make it more difficult to use force without proof in the future. So, I think it’s important to find out one way or the other. YMMV of course.