Live data from Hacker News

The H-Bombs in Turkey

newyorker.com

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take was the author meant no aircraft with the range to drop them on Russian targets. The New Yorker is pretty obsessive about fact-checking, so I think calling a statement like this a lie is an uncharitable reading.

>My take was the author meant no aircraft with the range to drop them on Russian targets. This is likely true. It's about ~5Mm from Incirlik to Russia (across the Black). Edit 1: s/Baltic/Black/g

[deleted]

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long will they hold in case of an ally betrayal? In the unlikely event of having crazy Islamist dictator with imperial ambitions as the God Emperor of Turkey?

Aren't most/all airplanes, missiles, etc... operated by the Turkish military from the U.S.? Doesn't the U.S. have the capability to disable them remotely?

No, the US doesn't export its armaments with any sort of remote disabling functionality, who would buy arms like that?

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#23
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, at what time is the PAL (presumably a code?) entered in one of these bombs? Is it done in flight or before the weapons are loaded?

'0000'.

I think it was actually "00000000" ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Develop...

Edit: Unless you mean that bike locks that the UK used to secure nukes, these days we just trust our submarine crews not to do anything rash.

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long will they hold in case of an ally betrayal? In the unlikely event of having crazy Islamist dictator with imperial ambitions as the God Emperor of Turkey?

Aren't most/all airplanes, missiles, etc... operated by the Turkish military from the U.S.? Doesn't the U.S. have the capability to disable them remotely?

As purchased supplies? That would be disasterous for the industry, no?

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is what the author meant, that is what the author should have said. "Equipped to deliver" pretty clearly means no aircraft that can load the bomb. At any rate, southern Russia is easily within range of Incirlik.

You can load the bomb onto a Toyota Hilux; it doesn't mean it's equipped to deliver it.

The Toyota Hilux isn't an aircraft. The B61 is an air-dropped dumb bomb. Any aircraft that can load it and drop it in the air can deliver it. If you didn't care about accuracy you could roll the thing out the back of a C-130 and successfully deliver it.

The point is, there is no equipment required to deliver the B61 other than a standard weapons rack with any air-to-ground aircraft has. The only A/G aircraft I am aware of that can't deliver the B61 is the F-22A, and only because the bomb won't fit in the weapons bay.

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#26
I'm skeptical that the PALs are as easy to bypass as this article says. It's possible that the arming code includes critical information necessary to properly detonate the bomb, such as timing info for firing the various detonators. Even if it doesn't, the critical PAL hardware is deep inside the bomb, requiring the bomb to be disassembled to get to it, then reassembled afterwards, and that's not quite as easy as swapping out your car's spark plugs.

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't most/all airplanes, missiles, etc... operated by the Turkish military from the U.S.? Doesn't the U.S. have the capability to disable them remotely?

No, the US doesn't export its armaments with any sort of remote disabling functionality, who would buy arms like that?

Actually it should be a simple as expiring whatever API key the jets use to communicate back to the US-based control servers. So when it POSTs to a StartEngine endpoint or whatever, it wouldn't start.

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#28
While Turkey has conflicts with some groups who want to grab part of the land or overthrow the government, they are FWIW a useful ally in the region because they have mostly-friendly dealings with UAE, Saudis, Iran, parts of Africa and also Israel. The degree of diplomacy varies, but there aren't many NATO members in that region who are as compatible when it comes to diplomatic ties with the region's powers. Russia, unfortunately doesn't deal with Iran, Israel and the Saudis the same way.

Given their growing business ties and influence in the region, maybe China can be another powerful ally. Or India. It certainly would help to have more than one dependable ally there, but China, like Russia, is in a weird power-play game with the USA, Australia, etc. Russia is more biased than Turkey, and that says a lot since Turkey cannot be a neutral Switzerland type because of their borders and demographic, so they're less of an option.

Also, let's not forget that Turkey has better relations with some ex-USSR nation that have considerable natural resources, due to cultural heritage, but then again strained relations with most of the ex-USSR countries.

It's a mess, but that's world politics.

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#29
One thing most people don't hear in the traditional American story about the Cuban Missle Crisis is that we put our weapons close to Russia (in Turkey) before they put any weapons close to us.

Re: The H-Bombs in Turkey

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long will they hold in case of an ally betrayal? In the unlikely event of having crazy Islamist dictator with imperial ambitions as the God Emperor of Turkey?

Aren't most/all airplanes, missiles, etc... operated by the Turkish military from the U.S.? Doesn't the U.S. have the capability to disable them remotely?

With current cad/cam systems I think it is possible to design a not bad Katusha analog in a weekend. And produce a couple in the next week. 20-30 of those build in secret could deliver a nasty first blow.
Post reply on HN