What if there was one dominant sunni power in the region with nuclear weapons? - That power has to meet certain parameters to ensure regional stability:
- It has an independent foreign policy i.e its government is NOT beholden to any foreign power for regime survival but depends on elections and domestic civilian institutions.
- Is fairly industrialized with capable human capital.
- Have a reliable defense industry and strong industrial capability to come up with its own version of upto date defence solutions.
- Have a decent stable economy.
- Has a positive image in the Arab world and ME muslim population.
The only country that meets all these above parameters is Turkey IMHO.
Now Suppose if Turks had nukes I doubt Russia would have risked bullying turkey in SYria and neither USA would have dared backing kurdish terrorists IMHO. YPG/SDF has become a serious headache for turkish national security. This nuclear deterrent worked perfectly fine through out the cold war, and is still working in the Indo-PAK context. Lets face it India would have rolled their tanks over PAK borders by now if PAK did NOT have nukes. Also lunatic KIM, even though a maniac dictator is proving the same point with nukes.
Now no need to cry over such what if scenario. But legally Turkey can still pursue a clandestine threshold nuclear weapons capability without crossing the NPT limits. I say this because recently I read an article where IAEA was whining about Brazil setting a bad precedent with this nuclear submarine program. For nuclear sub reactors you need a level of uranium enrichment that is higher than that required for commercial Nuclear power plants. And apparently the NPT does NOT outline stringent safe guards if a NPT non-nuclear state pursues say above 20% enrichment for a nuclear sub program. In short NPT treaty do NOT ban NPT member states from producing weapons grade uranium for sub propulsion:
"NPT member states are therefore allowed to remove from IAEA safeguards nuclear material intended for nonproscribed military uses such as submarine propulsion."
https://www.armscontrol.org/files/TAB_Submarine_Nuclear_Reactors.pdf
All of these are technical legal stuff and I am an absolute ammetuer but I enjoyed that article. Apparently the NPT agreed to this loophole since when it was signed in the 70s no country other than the 5 privileged ones had technology to make nuke subs and many countries like japan, germany etc were against limiting naval nuclear propulsion technology fearing that such tech will have huge market in the future and they did NOT want to limit their ship building industry.
Now what if turkey actually launch a nuclear sub program like brazil (brazil already has enrichment infrastructure and they voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons program). Perfectly legal and they can even enrich uranium without IAEA safe guards technically. Off course the US+ RUssia+ EU does NOT give damn about technicality and legality in such cases other wise why pressure Iran to limit their perfectly legal right to produce nuclear fuel (NPT does allow enrichment up to 3.5% under IAEA safe guards)? But there's catch the USA and UK will use 90% enriched uranium for their ohio and vnaguard replacement future boomers. They will have a less bargaining chip at the negotiation table if they want to pressure turkey then. Off course Turkey needs to somehow gain some level of diplomatic support from as many countries as possible including china (if possible). That's why the Iranian navy commander recently talked about Iran contemplating launching a Nuclear Submarine program. This has sent alarm bells in the IAEA.
SO what do PDF members and specially turkish members think about their country's defences and whether they want their gov to pursue such a program. 67% S.koreans apparently want S.korean gov to pursue an independent nuclear weapons capability according to latest polls. WHat is the turkish people's opinion on it?
Pros for Turkey having its own nukes:
1) More independence in pursuing its regional and international agenda.
2) They need to have similar power stature as france if they want to effectively realize their interest in Africa and power projection in the region with bases on Qatar & somalia. Without nukes, you are a paper tiger.
3) Russian interference in Syria against turkish interest & US popping up YPG/SDF should be a wake up call for turkey.
4) More Independence from NATO and room to maneuver even without leaving the "western alliance".
5) Looking eye to eye with the Russain bear.
6) Enhance its image among muslim world specially arab world as a strong muslim power and thereby luring them into a Turkish economic and political allaince/sphere of influence.
One can talk about sanctions but at some point I believe west will come to accept sanctioned nuclear power states if those states can fend off western pressure without crumbling for a long a long period of time and history is a testament to this . India and 70s communist China are good example. West still whines about PAK but I beleive they have to accept PAK as a legitimate official nuclear power. The same goes for N.Korea , they may gain legitimacy from the west in the long run (btw I hoped lunatic kim did NOT have nuke and korea unified but it does NOT seem to be a possibility now).
Discuss and have fun.
--------------------------------------------------------------
@Iqbal Ali @war&peace @Psychic @Khafee @Apprentice @Banglar Bir @dsr478 @Zarvan @AUz @Dai Toruko @Verve @HAKIKAT @Arsalan @Samlee @Max @Khafee @jamal18 @Narendra Trump @mb444 @Mirzah @shah_123 @Avicenna
@Meengla @Lagay Raho @Dawood Ibrahim @simple Brain @Malik Abdullah @Mrc @Fledgingwings @tesla @Timur
- It has an independent foreign policy i.e its government is NOT beholden to any foreign power for regime survival but depends on elections and domestic civilian institutions.
- Is fairly industrialized with capable human capital.
- Have a reliable defense industry and strong industrial capability to come up with its own version of upto date defence solutions.
- Have a decent stable economy.
- Has a positive image in the Arab world and ME muslim population.
The only country that meets all these above parameters is Turkey IMHO.
Now Suppose if Turks had nukes I doubt Russia would have risked bullying turkey in SYria and neither USA would have dared backing kurdish terrorists IMHO. YPG/SDF has become a serious headache for turkish national security. This nuclear deterrent worked perfectly fine through out the cold war, and is still working in the Indo-PAK context. Lets face it India would have rolled their tanks over PAK borders by now if PAK did NOT have nukes. Also lunatic KIM, even though a maniac dictator is proving the same point with nukes.
Now no need to cry over such what if scenario. But legally Turkey can still pursue a clandestine threshold nuclear weapons capability without crossing the NPT limits. I say this because recently I read an article where IAEA was whining about Brazil setting a bad precedent with this nuclear submarine program. For nuclear sub reactors you need a level of uranium enrichment that is higher than that required for commercial Nuclear power plants. And apparently the NPT does NOT outline stringent safe guards if a NPT non-nuclear state pursues say above 20% enrichment for a nuclear sub program. In short NPT treaty do NOT ban NPT member states from producing weapons grade uranium for sub propulsion:
"NPT member states are therefore allowed to remove from IAEA safeguards nuclear material intended for nonproscribed military uses such as submarine propulsion."
https://www.armscontrol.org/files/TAB_Submarine_Nuclear_Reactors.pdf
All of these are technical legal stuff and I am an absolute ammetuer but I enjoyed that article. Apparently the NPT agreed to this loophole since when it was signed in the 70s no country other than the 5 privileged ones had technology to make nuke subs and many countries like japan, germany etc were against limiting naval nuclear propulsion technology fearing that such tech will have huge market in the future and they did NOT want to limit their ship building industry.
Now what if turkey actually launch a nuclear sub program like brazil (brazil already has enrichment infrastructure and they voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons program). Perfectly legal and they can even enrich uranium without IAEA safe guards technically. Off course the US+ RUssia+ EU does NOT give damn about technicality and legality in such cases other wise why pressure Iran to limit their perfectly legal right to produce nuclear fuel (NPT does allow enrichment up to 3.5% under IAEA safe guards)? But there's catch the USA and UK will use 90% enriched uranium for their ohio and vnaguard replacement future boomers. They will have a less bargaining chip at the negotiation table if they want to pressure turkey then. Off course Turkey needs to somehow gain some level of diplomatic support from as many countries as possible including china (if possible). That's why the Iranian navy commander recently talked about Iran contemplating launching a Nuclear Submarine program. This has sent alarm bells in the IAEA.
SO what do PDF members and specially turkish members think about their country's defences and whether they want their gov to pursue such a program. 67% S.koreans apparently want S.korean gov to pursue an independent nuclear weapons capability according to latest polls. WHat is the turkish people's opinion on it?
Pros for Turkey having its own nukes:
1) More independence in pursuing its regional and international agenda.
2) They need to have similar power stature as france if they want to effectively realize their interest in Africa and power projection in the region with bases on Qatar & somalia. Without nukes, you are a paper tiger.
3) Russian interference in Syria against turkish interest & US popping up YPG/SDF should be a wake up call for turkey.
4) More Independence from NATO and room to maneuver even without leaving the "western alliance".
5) Looking eye to eye with the Russain bear.
6) Enhance its image among muslim world specially arab world as a strong muslim power and thereby luring them into a Turkish economic and political allaince/sphere of influence.
One can talk about sanctions but at some point I believe west will come to accept sanctioned nuclear power states if those states can fend off western pressure without crumbling for a long a long period of time and history is a testament to this . India and 70s communist China are good example. West still whines about PAK but I beleive they have to accept PAK as a legitimate official nuclear power. The same goes for N.Korea , they may gain legitimacy from the west in the long run (btw I hoped lunatic kim did NOT have nuke and korea unified but it does NOT seem to be a possibility now).
Discuss and have fun.
--------------------------------------------------------------
@Iqbal Ali @war&peace @Psychic @Khafee @Apprentice @Banglar Bir @dsr478 @Zarvan @AUz @Dai Toruko @Verve @HAKIKAT @Arsalan @Samlee @Max @Khafee @jamal18 @Narendra Trump @mb444 @Mirzah @shah_123 @Avicenna
@Meengla @Lagay Raho @Dawood Ibrahim @simple Brain @Malik Abdullah @Mrc @Fledgingwings @tesla @Timur
Last edited:
