Incirlik air base in Adana, Turkey. © Murad Sezer / Reuters
Novinite: U.S. Reportedly Transferring Nukes from Turkey to Romania
With relations between Washington and Ankara worsening after last month's coup attempt, the United States has started moving nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania, EurActiv.com reported on Thursday, citing two independent sources.
A source has told the online media outlet that “the US-Turkey relations had deteriorated so much following the coup that Washington no longer trusted Ankara to host the weapons”.
According to that source, the U.S. were transferring nuclear weapons to Deveselu air base in Romania.
Another source has told EurActiv that the transfer of nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania is “very challenging in technical and political terms.”
EurActiv has sought comment from all the parties involved.
Read more ....
Update #1: EurActiv: US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania (EurActiv)
Update #2: As Turkey "Considers Military Cooperation" With Russia, US Said To Move Nukes Out Of Turkey -- Zero Hedge
WNU Editor: Roumania is denying these reports .... Romania Denies Accepting US Nuclear Weapons (Balkan Insight). The same from the Pentagon .... US nukes ‘safe and secure’ in Turkey, says Air Force chief (RT).
12 comments:
Yup, false.
And here I thought they were finally taking my advice.
Doubtful.
I would hope these weapons have been transferred. Of course if they are no one wants to admit having them as no one wants to admit to actually assisting the US with anything. While they all like taking US assistance, when the US needs assistance on anything "allies" are either nowhere to be found or they pile on by undermining the US further.
Turkey has never actually been a stable country. I would think planning for the eventual inevitable coup, how to respond in this event, and how to safely get the nuclear weapons out would be a top priority. With this American government that which is sensible is often times not followed.
If the weapons are still in Turkey, they definitely are not safe. With an unstable country like Turkey having such weapons there they would never be safe.
Why is Turkey in NATO? why is the US in NATO? While NATO may serve some practical benefit to Turkey, it does not to the US. All NATO members especially those in Eastern Europe have interests that are incompatible with US interests, generally, especially those in Eastern Europe, hold the USA in utter contempt as an object to be used and abused for their pleasure and benefit, and NO ONE is going to come to our aid when we are invaded unless it is to help the invaders or cheer them on!! The sooner we exit this worthless "alliance" and put as much distance between us and countries like Turkey the better!!
Why is the US in NATO? To enable it to mess around in the affairs of others and goad Russia as often as possible.
Perhaps without NATO the US would be less active in the affairs of other nations and other nations would not be able to use NATO to manipulate the US into serving their interests which often run contrary to US interests.
While the media often portrays things as though the US is "goading" Russia, it is probably not that simple. Russia is the world's best at using he media to get it's message out while the US is the world's worst at this. I think there is plenty of "goading" on all sides here. Clearly the eastern Europeans feel threatened. Until Russia comes to terms with its prior actions its going to be hard to resolve this. Without NATO the US is likely to be involved and the bigger problem of others using NATO to pull the US into things is greatly diminished. The sooner the US gets out of NATO the better. Doing so should help our relations with Russia.
In any event, Russia is the most powerful military force on the planet. All parties need to act accordingly. For the US the top priority needs to be upgrading the nuclear deterant and border security. For others it may be different.
"The sooner the US gets out of NATO the better. Doing so should help our relations with Russia."
So you are voting for Trump?
"So are you voting for Trump?" I think you can tell I'm not voting for Mrs. Clinton. Given her mental instability which has been documented here, this would seem unwise to vote for her. also, add to this the fact that she is going to prison at some point during her first term. It'll ultimately be something petty that does her in. Think O. J. Simpson. Even if this doesn't happen, health issues are likely to prevent her from finishing her first term.
It seems unwise to put such a damaged person in such a position and then have to deal with the aftermath of their removal from office on top of all of the massive problems the nation already has. Even if this does not materialize this way, the Russians and Chinese are not going to put with an America that they deem hostile to their interests for an indefinite period of time.
At a minimum, the dollar will lose its role as world reserve currency in the next few years. The only questions are will it be a "hard landing" or a "soft landing?" Whose best to give us the best possibility of a soft landing and to afford us ample time and space to prepare properly? I would think it would be someone who has advisors who have close ties to top Russian officials and their associates whom the Russians might be inclined to trust as opposed to someone whose team recklessly blamed the Russians for the DNC computer hack which can only serve to ratchet of tensions even more, sort of like dumping fuel on a raging forest fire or a small child playing with matches under the bed. Such people should never be allowed anywhere near positions of power and should be treated as children until they can demonstrate a level of maturity necessary to handle affairs as an adult.
I think you know whose who in the above situation. This alone absent anything else would be reason enough to vote for Mr. Trump as he is one most likely to act in a manner that might improve relations with Russia making it more likely we can achieve a soft landing when the US dollar loses its role as world reserve currency.
Moving on to some other issues, 1.)the need to renegotiate some of these woefully one sided trade agreements we are currently suffering under, 2.)the need to renegotiate NATO and other "defense" agreements such as those with Japan and South Korea, 3.)suggesting that most Crimeans do not want to return to Russia and suggesting that perhaps we should look at lifting American sanctions against Russia, 4.)the need to secure the borders and stop the invasion of our country from the south, and 5.) the need to streamline regulations while eliminating others making it more cost effective to manufacture in the United States are all positions that have been espoused by M. Trump. I could actually go on but I think you see the point.
I've been pointing out that all of these issues needed to be addressed for quite a few years. I'm pleased to see that someone who may be actually to do something constructive to this end has finally caught on. Better late than never I suppose.
Will Mr. Trump follow through? Can he actually follow through? This is not known at this time. While it would be optimal to have a candidate who had a long track record of supporting such positions who might actually be able to win, we don't. Given the options, a vote for Trump would seem the only sane vote.
Due to the 4,096 character limit I was unable to add everything I wanted to the above analysis. Time permitting I will add to it. Suffice it to say expressing concepts that require a great deal of time, effort, research, and thought given such limited space can be challenging.
A yes or no would have sufficed but if it is okay with you I might plagiarize some of your verbiage when I post on various sites.
Sorry about the length of the post. Please feel free to use anything you think might be of value.
This plays into what Putin was saying a few weeks ago... in Those missile interceptor installations the missiles can be fitted with nuclear tipped warheads without the Romanian government even knowing.
Post a Comment