What's new

Will Turkey ever have to give back NATO nukes?

You have not provided any real evidence to back up your assertion.

If you really think that Turkey would ever be allowed to independently launch nuclear weapons, then frankly you
are an idiot.

Thanks and have a good day.
I reported you for calling me an "idiot". I laid out my case including sources. Obviously you don't have much to bring to the table so you resort to insults safely behind your computer.
 
.
Please report me as your source/s makes no such claim.

You will look like an idiot in the end.
Sorry but you already lost the discussion. You started using insults and that shows you have nothing to bring to the table. Besides the point that it is inappropriate it is rude. I hope admins take care of you since this behaviour shouldn't be encouraged and you keep doing it.
 
.
Sorry but you already lost the discussion. You started using insults and that shows you have nothing to bring to the table. Besides the point that it is inappropriate it is rude. I hope admins take care of you since this behaviour shouldn't be encouraged and you keep doing it.

Let us see what the admins do.

BTW, there is plenty of people calling others "idiot" here and there is never anyone complaining. Why are
you so touchy?

I have been called an "idiot" many times and never bothered me at all.
 
.
Turkey cannot independently launch nuclear weapons (the ones we are talking about), even though we have the codes from some.

Some people are delusional, if they think we can just launch it if we are at war; maybe during WW3 however lol...
 
.
40 nukes,if that is the number.It is a huge number.
Even 05 nukes can do a big amount of damage to the infrastructure and life of any country that is at the receiving end.And any country which can successfully send 5 nukes towards you, can send the next five as well with a potential to double the damage.
Today the the name of the game is not the Number of nukes.It's their delivery system that matters the most and will play a pivotal role in any type of war.How effective and accurate you are with any of the tactical or a full blown mega sized nuke attack; is the key.If your nemesis is able enough to take down any of your delivery device well before it reaches it's targeted territory.Then it'll be the end of the world for you.
Geographic location does play a role,not only for the delivery system but also as far as the after effects of a nuke strike are concerned.If the target is located 100's of miles away.It gives your nemesis a suitable amount of time to intercept your delivery device.It demands a tech sophisticated enough to reach the target which is far far away and avoid any of the attempts of intercept.
If the enemy is right next door, bigger explosions will do no good but will surround you as well with it's after effects.There the tactical nukes comes into play.It'll do almost the same amount of damage on the target,but will not harm you.It comes with an added advantage of an ease to move it from one place to another and it can be concealed if required.
 
.
Turkey cannot independently launch nuclear weapons (the ones we are talking about), even though we have the codes from some.

Some people are delusional, if they think we can just launch it if we are at war; maybe during WW3 however lol...
We won't "just launch" it. I already explained how absurd that is. Nuclear weapons are last option. As you said, we have the codes plus we have the aircraft who are capable of delivering the bombs. According to NATO protocols we need to consult and ask permission but technically, if we look pure from technical aspect, we are capable of delivering nuclear strike (of the ones we have the codes of) independently. Of course the ones we don't have codes of we need to ask permision for.
 
Last edited:
.
Not at all. Midway has nothing to do with Nuclear strike(s) on Japan. US didn't throw two nukes on Japan because of midway. They threw two nukes on Japan because they knew it would cost Americans 1 million soldiers to invade Japan. So they nukes them. Two of their cities. If Japan has Nuclear deterrent. They wouldn't have nuked Japan since that would mean Japan would deliver nuclear strike on US soil too. What don't you don't understand about Nuclear deterrents? I know you say the world should be nuclear free and everybody should give up their nuclear weapons including US and Israel (who are you going to convince that?) and everything should be green and rosy but it is not. That is the reality. If you have nuclear weapons, nobody will use nuclear weapons against you. If you don't have nuclear arsenal, you will end up like Japan in WW2. 

Go and do your own research since you don't like the sources I gave. If you are too lazy to read the sources I gave, you shouldn't be questioning anything.
I get your point. But i am thinking differently from you about bombs on Japan. Japan was allready fallen it was a message to soviets. Then guess what happended soviets had build nuclear bombs. Clocks started to ticking for dooms day. In WW2 none of countries used chemical weapons because all of them knows it from WW1. US lost Vietnam, Soviets lost Afganistan but they didnt use nuclears.

Now imagine if iran and israel launches nukes to them selfs. They will destroy each other thats their problem. But we cant ask passport for radiation clouds. We are seening countries like a living organizm but in reality dooms day can be started like a person you and me. One day a president a leader or dictator will use it. You can say No but stupity revivals it self in many forms. One day an idiot will use it. Nukes bad really bad idea my friend. And i dont fell comfortable living with 90 nukes even not knowing their maintanance situation.
 
.
Turkey doesn't have independent nuclear delivery capability.The bombs belong to NATo nations and inoperable without their support.Otherwise turkey would ranked as a nuclear power.
In any case totally moot point,turkey wouldn't need any as long as they are member of NATO.Now if they want to go hardline erdo and leave NATo-then it might need to get nukes of its own.Sanctions would be likely though.
Nukes are prestige weapon these days.Large scale military conflict on earth is over.
Next large scale warfare to decide fate of nations will be in space,but thats a LONG way in the future.
 
. .
If you have source for your claims please share.



Turkey is a Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States

''Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store. This involves pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing, handling, and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver .US. nuclear bombs. U.S. nuclear weapons were also deployed in Canada until 1984, and in Greece until 2001 for nuclear sharing purposes.''
By your definition all five are nuclear powers.They can practice and handle weapons,and modify planes for emergency use,But usa retains control over them.
 
.
Technically NATO can remove those nukes but aslong as NATO exist Turkey won't allow that since it sees those nukes as essential part of its national security. According to that essay I posted on first page Turkish officials already doubt NATO's trustworthiness and willingness to stand on her side. If NATO or US even made attempt or made a few words about removing those nukes, Turkey would arms race to get nukes ASAP and quit NATO. Turkey already is doing the research as we speak. Turkish scientist are going to Russia to learn about nuclear development, plus we have very close ties with Pakistan who could help us.Turkey should focus on capability and swiftness of producing nukes since it doesn't have a hurry to have on of her own, it is very expensive and why would they produce one if we have 90 nukes stacked right now and 40 of them we have the codes of and technically we can use them independently.
 
Last edited:
.
Well as a technologically developed country Turkey can make its own if ever needed... the question is does Turkey need it?
Is there a war mongering nuclear equipped country in its vicinity?
 
.
''Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store. This involves pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing, handling, and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver .US. nuclear bombs. U.S. nuclear weapons were also deployed in Canada until 1984, and in Greece until 2001 for nuclear sharing purposes.''
By your definition all five are nuclear powers.They can practice and handle weapons,and modify planes for emergency use,But usa retains control over them.

Yes, but there is nothing in those sentences, says we can't deliver a NUKE.

"non-U.S. warplanes to deliver .US. nuclear bombs" in similar we can deliver Amraam Missiles whenever when we want and they are "US bombs."

I'm not trying to say "We can deliver these bombs". What i'm trying to say is "İ don't know". I haven't come across a source, clearly saying that "Turkey can deliver a NUKE on its own or not." 
if we have 90 nukes stacked right now and 40 of them we have the codes of and technically we can use them independently.

Source pls. I haven't also heard anything about having the codes.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom