71–80 of 145 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless this is exactly what they planned.
That could be but there is absolutely zero evidence for that, it appears that they were caught flat-footed, the (Turkish) base commander was arrested.
* there's a list of 6000 people to be arrested, military and non-military, which must have existed before
* offensive on the ground took place at a time when they must have known Erdogan wasn't there
* they could have shot down his plane with F16s, but didn't
* the coup was generally terribly organized, in a country where the military certainly knows how to do it
* Erdogan is known to be a mischievous POS
Many people are sceptical and for good reasons.
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?
I understand that stationing nuclear weapons is a good way to ensure your allies of your support in case of an attack, but having them stationed anywhere in the Middle East in these chaotic times sounds completely nuts to me. You can't know who will be in power in any of these countries in one year from now and what they'll do. The Turkish military is probably strong enough to easily overpower the US soldiers station…
I think you may be underestimating the results of that attempt to take the nukes by force. Syria, Libya and Iraq are representative of what would happen to Turkey if they did that. The US is vindictive, and tends to hold a grudge for a long time - and it behaves that way on subtle matters, this would be 10x. The US would proceed to do everything possible for the next two decades to destroy Turkey and turn it into a third world basket-case, and it wouldn't care about the fall-out from doing so.
I understand that stationing nuclear weapons is a good way to ensure your allies of your support in case of an attack, but having them stationed anywhere in the Middle East in these chaotic times sounds completely nuts to me. You can't know who will be in power in any of these countries in one year from now and what they'll do. The Turkish military is probably strong enough to easily overpower the US soldiers station…
It would be a declaration of war on the US and NATO. I think you may be underestimating the results of that attempt to take the nukes by force. Syria, Libya and Iraq are representative of what would happen to Turkey if they did that. The US is vindictive, and tends to hold a grudge for a long time - and it behaves that way on subtle matters, this would be 10x. The US would proceed to do everything possible for the ne…
Turkey is no North Korea, they have strong ties to many governments and are in a strategically central position.
On top of that they have a lot of open disputes with many countries around them and they are known to act militaristically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That could be but there is absolutely zero evidence for that, it appears that they were caught flat-footed, the (Turkish) base commander was arrested.
Let's see: * there's a list of 6000 people to be arrested, military and non-military, which must have existed before * offensive on the ground took place at a time when they must have known Erdogan wasn't there * they could have shot down his plane with F16s, but didn't * the coup was generally terribly organized, in a country where the military certainly knows how to do it * Erdogan is known to be a mischievous POS…
Going with your suggestion would indicate that this safeguard no longer exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're vastly underestimating 1st world intelligence capabilities. By the time anyone is brainstorming how exactly they want to take the base the big players in NATO already have guys sitting in jets idling on the taxiway, an aircraft carrier is taking a hard turn into the wind and an aide is popping popcorn and cracking a beer so Mr. Putin can enjoy the spectacle. When nukes are involved things get taken ver…
I think you are giving people far too much credit, and wrapping it in too much nonsense. The amount of absolute intelligence failure (intentional or otherwise) in the last 15 or so years has been astounding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turkey has the largest standing army in the region. 600K or so. Those 2000 troops wouldn't last long enough to get the weapons out.
Because declaring war on the most potent military force on the planet (along with all of NATO), murdering its troops in an ambush, and taking at least hundreds of hostages, is going to turn out really well for Turkey. They'd be likely to get carved up in a back-room deal with Russia and NATO. The US would immediately declare war on Turkey and begin destroying its cities and infrastructure. The Turkish air force would…
That may be true, but the intermediate will be extremely messy, to put it mildly.
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 swa…
Design: http://i.imgur.com/tv7JVXC.png
Source: http://web.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/060315-slides-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I thought that Kennedy's secret agreement to trade the Jupiter missiles in Turkey for the Soviet missiles in Cuba was the standard ending to the story.
I don't recall ever hearing that.
> No one was sure how Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev would respond to the naval blockade and U.S. demands. But the leaders of both superpowers recognized the devastating possibility of a nuclear war and publicly agreed to a deal in which the Soviets would dismantle the weapon sites in exchange for a pledge from the United States not to invade Cuba. In a separate deal, which remained secret for more than twenty-five years, the United States also agreed to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey. Although the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba, they escalated the building of their military arsenal; the missile crisis was over, the arms race was not.
http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cuban-missile-crisis
> During the Cuban Missile Crisis, leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union engaged in a tense, 13-day political and military standoff in October 1962 over the installation of nuclear-armed Soviet missiles on Cuba, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. In a TV address on October 22, 1962, President John Kennedy (1917-63) notified Americans about the presence of the missiles, explained his decision to enact a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear the U.S. was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize this perceived threat to national security. Following this news, many people feared the world was on the brink of nuclear war. However, disaster was avoided when the U.S. agreed to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s (1894-1971) offer to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the U.S. promising not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real...
> Once that was straightened out, Kennedy himself declared repeatedly that the Jupiter missiles were “the same” as the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Rusk, in discussing the Soviet motivation for sending missiles to Cuba, cited CIA Director John McCone’s view that Khrushchev “knows that we have a substantial nuclear superiority … He also knows that we don’t really live under fear of his nuclear weapons to the extent that he has to live under fear of ours. Also, we have nuclear weapons nearby, in Turkey.” The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Maxwell Taylor, had already acknowledged that the Soviets’ primary purpose in installing missiles in Cuba was “to supplement their rather defective ICBM system.”
> if the administration’s domestic political priorities alone dictated the removal of the Cuban missiles, a solution to Kennedy’s problem would have seemed pretty obvious: instead of a public ultimatum demanding that the Soviets withdraw their missiles from Cuba, a private agreement between the superpowers to remove both Moscow’s missiles in Cuba and Washington’s missiles in Turkey. (Recall that the Kennedy administration discovered the missiles on October 16, but only announced its discovery to the American public and the Soviets and issued its ultimatum on the 22nd.)
These are all US-based sources so I'm not sure what gave you that impression unless you only heard about it in the 60s/70s when it was embargoed/classified?
