« "A Very Predictable Coup?" by Philip Geraldi | Main | All in the Morning Paper - TTG »

19 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


From what I understand these are USAF technicians. If that is not so, someone tell me! pl



Thank you. I appreciate your sentiment.


Well, if they are willing to detonate one bomb, they won't survive, but neither will the armor, and the remaining bombs will be useless.


Wouldn't Putin (and others) be rather pleased with tayyip if the latter's actions caused the B-61s to be removed from Incirlik? Just a thought...

James Loughton


My knowledge is almost 50 years out of date by now and based solely on my experience as a high school student whose father was a wing commander of B-52 wings from 1966 through 1969. One weekend day dad let me ride along as he took a tour of the flight line including the active alert area. My recollection was that there were several perimeter guards and the several guards around each armed aircraft They carried rifles and pistols, but appeared to be Airmen rather than (Army) soldiers. Perhaps they were military police with additional training, or perhaps they had some other training. I didn't ask, so cannot say.

I had never really thought about it until today, but my guess is that few, if any had ever fired a shot in anger. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I can improve on this.

James Loughton

As for Question 3: Can the weapons be disabled, perhaps remotely?

The best information I could find is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

It's not clear to me whether they can be disabled remotely or not. I does appear they can be disabled on site.

Lloyd D. Herod, Jr.

Col., and SST;
For answers and informed speculation to some of the questions posed about the safety and security of US devices in this thread, I recommend Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. The safety and security measures mentioned in the book come from extensive interviews by the author of engineers, physicists and military personnel with knowledge of nuclear weapons design, safety and control.

There is an article in the current New Yorker dated 7/17/2016 by Schlosser entitled "The H-Bombs in Turkey" There are entrys for the B-61 and it's variants in the National Security Archive website, The nuclearweaponsarchive.org website also contains information on the B-61, some of it duplicating information found in the Nationa Security Archive website.



Yes, Putin would be pleased. So what? pl

Peter Reichard

It is difficult to imagine any scenario with the possible exception of Korea where the rapid use of tactical nuclear weapons would become necessary. The current instability in Turkey shows that the risk/benefit ratio of deploying these weapons overseas is enormous, they should be withdrawn to US territory or kept on ships.


In reply to turcopolier 19 July 2016 at 08:20 PM


I'd always been told they had breakout capability for creating the munitions but not for the delivery. Is that still the case?

I've got a great deal of respect for the level of ability one finds in Turkish universities.



They could create nuclear weapons but to achieve the miniaturized industrial processes needed to produce weapons like the B-61, etc. is a far different matter. Their first weapons would probably be something like the ones we used on Japan. pl


It likely wasn't necessary for Erdogan to make a move (or feint) toward Incirlik in order to defeat the coup and conduct the purge. The fact that he did make such a move should have the effect of causing the US to re-think its storage of B-61s at the base, as folks here have suggested. If Erdogan's move against the base does result in the US moving the B-61s further from Russia, Iran, etc., the possibility of rapprochement between Turkey and various Eurasian countries may increase.

Removal of the weapons is sensible from the US POV. Prodding the US to remove the weapons would be sort of a housewarming gift from Erdogan to Putin and others. The above senario implies that Erdogan or someone else was thinking ahead a little, with intent to accomplish more than one end. If Erdogan had threaten the base absent the simultaneous failed coup and purge, the B-61 issue would have become much more visible and provocative.

Allen Thomson

Looking around for possibly relevant information, it turns out that an F-16 can carry two 750-lb B61s on wing stations plus a center-line fuel tank. People who know more about F-16s than I might want to comment on what that means in terms of mission radius.

Also, and relating to transportation of B61s, https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/08/volkelnukes/ has a couple of pictures. The bottom one shows a complete B61 being loaded into a C-17 -- a small bomb going into a big airplane. The top picture is more interesting; see https://fas.org/blogs/security/2007/09/flying_nuclear_bombs/


Allen Thompson In a pinch you could probably put the whole group pf bpmbs in 3 C-130s. pl

Allen Thomson

I agree. Getting them out shouldn't be a big deal unless the Turks were being difficult about it.

BTW, on carriage, it seems that an F-16 can carry a B61 and a biggish fuel tank on each wing: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/6997234036_941607d241_b.jpg


Some believe that Turkey was the unknown fourth customer of A Q Khan and technically they are probably more advanced than Pakistan so they might not be there by 2020 but 2025 may be possible. And with the reactors they're buying from Russia and the Franco-Japanese consortium, I've seen reports that Turkey intends to do the enrichment and reprocessing themselves and with reprocessing being so expensive compared to the cost of clean new LEU, it suggests they want to get their hands on some plutonium.
BTW, if, as some people claim, the Syrians were capable of developing nuclear weapons, shouldn't the Turkish be able to do it. On the otherhand, the Israelis produce an awful lot of BS.
As for Erdogan's major announcement, a three month state of emergency. How boring.





Ergodan family was middleman to ISIS oil sales to Israel. MSM reports on who sells oil but never on who buys.


A classic well-researched article documents decades of Iranian leader statements that they are morally, strategically, and tactically against Iranian possession and use of nuclear weapons.

"Ignoring Decades of Iranian Statements on Nuclear Weapons for the Sake of Propaganda"

the simplest explanation is that they are sincere, and have been set up for the 1984 Two Minutes of Hate since '79. Also note Iran has co-sponsored MENWFZ proposal. So people who propose Iran actually "should" get nukes, to balance the region, still have not heard what is actually being said and are missing the boat. They are thinking, from an Anglo viewpoint, "What would WE do if we were Iranians?"

Can you confirm any of this?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad