As part of the nuclear modernization program, the old stock in Turkey needs to be replaced (wink wink) with stock that still has service life. Perfect cover to put fakes in.
exactly how do you get them out of the Special weapons bunkers that have both Turk a American guards? In theory, after the Minot practice nuke debacle, only nukes are in that bunker, and while the Turk LT on duty may not know how to hotwire a B61, he was drilled on "two man rule" AND "joint custody". He may be told to watch for various surreptitious movement scenarios
Special weapons bunkers only have US Guards. No host nation is allowed to guard them. Or even approach them. That was the case even in the UK on RAF airbases. When Nucs were stored at St Mawgan for use on US P-3 and RAF Nimrod (Nimrod eventually got the UK WE.177 bomb) there was a seperate bomb compound guarded exclusively by US Marines. UK nuclear weapons were in a seperate area guarded by UK forces.
And there won't ever be. The US nuclear sharing got in before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so was accepted as a fact at the time. The UK and France are signatories so cannot share.
All of the nations (with the exception of Turkey, as they had to be removed from the programme) have made purchases of weapons specifically to deliver B-61 i.e. F-35. This particularly applies to Germany who are purchasing 35 just for that purpose.
Putin and the Russian ethno-nationalists are certifiably paranoid but removal of the nukes could help lower the temperature by a small degree. The conventional threat the nukes were meant to deter is a phantom. Addition of Finland and perhaps Sweden soon lowers need for nukes by making Russian aggression less likely. It would be a diplomatic win for the US and we desperately need one. In answer to THE Drill SGT's excellent question: I think the Turks would be happy to see them go. Lessens chance of them getting hammered in a Russo-NATO spat. (Opinion comes with the caveat I am frequently wrong). To modify your point, I see all benefit and no cost to removal of the B61s.
I had a drill sergeant whose previous gig was in an MP company at a depot in Germany. He said it was arranged like Arlington cemetery, perfectly lined up no matter where you were. They ran emergency destruction drills all the time. So might not get much that was very usable.
Back in The Day, the Surface Navy may well have carried the largest number of "tactical' nukes (and I mean by that, ship v ship and ship v aircraft), considering the numbers of nuke ASROCs and nuke Terriers in the fleet.
Now that our Marines are not permanently deployed to the 'Stan Boxes, let's cut with the Female Engagement Teams and go back to MARDET's on every vessel capable of tacticals. Get our adversaries wondering about the shell game.
Saudi is going to go more into Chinas sphere than Russia for economics reasons also doesnt help the Saudis prince feels personal insulted by biden the petrol dollar is on its death bed
He should be insulted. The Qatari played our press and Democrats like a fiddle to the benefit of the Iranians and the Houthi. - Never mind we also extrajudically kill Americans.
I had no idea how perfectly useless our (USA--not NATO) nuclear weapon arsenal was over in Europe and the Middle East. Thanks for the lesson, CDR Salamander.
In the 70's and 80's (when I had a role in tactical delivery) they were a viable weapon option. I doubt the US would have been the first user, Soviet doctrine certainly allowed their first use.
These days? I agree: Everyone has them, nobody will use them. The danger in this status quo is that should someone actually use one, the only logical response would be a strategic exchange. A 'tit for tat' nuking a'la "The Third World War 1985" by General Sir John Hackett? Not these days
There are days I'd wonder if the Euros would have the stones to use them when they need to, especially if it's on behalf of another Euro NATO member rather than their own country. But your point is sound. What about restoring more bombers at Thule on a regular basis? You'd be going over the pole, shorter to fly, or is just you don't like gravity bomb delivered weaponry and reality is they'd just target Thule minute one? Putting a ground launched mobile platform that could handle a nuke cruise missile, or converting some of the new Hypersonic missiles to use nukes (at 55 mil a pop, might be the only logical thing to put on them rather than a conventional warhead for that price), would that better? They can be hidden much easier, stored perhaps in mountain type cave structures and dispersed.
And removing from Turkey, why they are still there begs the question "if" they are still even there, it's just too tempting for takeover if say Erodogan was replaced by someone that was even more anti-Western.
Wiki: "Pituffik is a former settlement in northern Greenland, located at the eastern end of Bylot Sound by a tombolo known as Uummannaq, near the current site of the American Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base."
It makes no mention of what Pituffik means in the local language. But блять, blyat ...Bylot Sound? Did some Russian whaling ship visit centuries ago, find the local R&R appalling and sailor say "Phf-f-ft 'Uffik"? "Tombolo", tomboy? "Uummannaq"? I don't even want to know. I'll leave it to an etymologyist to puzzle out. Pituffik looks more isolated than Shemya. Bet you lots of Naval Aviators are happy that's a Space Force base.
My buddy's uncle was a phantom pilot back in the day and he said his uncle did a major league screw up and was told in no uncertain terms that he was going to spend a tour at Thule. I'd imagine it's for those that truly don't like a social atmosphere, or love Polar Bears, LOL.
When you think about gravity atomic weapons, think about the aviators who had to prepare and train to fly them to the target.
I have been flying on a regional airline. They fly out of a minor airport that has a nice, long runway. A naval air station in the cold war. There’s a plane on a pylon at the entrance to the airport. The plane is a RA-5C Vigilante.
Imagine a pilot, and a bombardier, moving at Mach2 with a big atom bomb under their seats. Carrier launched with a 900 mile range and engines powerful enough to reach the edge of space. The mission was to launch, sprint over the target, yank a lever to let a drogue pull the package out the tail of the bomber, then head back home. It takes some pretty valiant airmen to train for a mission like that. Peacetime operations must have been frightening; the thing was a beast.
The Commander is dead right about the atomic arsenal. The soundest course of action would be to remove the weapons are replace them with training dummies filled with sand. Now is not the time to enter into arms talks with Russia, and removal of the bombs is something we should expect to trade for. Removing the bombs from Turkey removes the risk, and a policy of neither confirming, or denying, there are bombs in Turkey allows us to demand concessions when the time is right. Then we can make a big show of pulling our dummies out, and closing the facility.
"There’s a plane on a pylon at the entrance to the airport. The plane is a RA-5C Vigilante."
My dad was instrumental in getting that airplane placed as the gate guard at Sanford...
I lived on that base. It closed in 1968, and the Wing was moved to the former Turner AFB in Albany Ga.
Dad commanded both a VAH (with A3D's) and an RVAH squadron.
The RA-5C was no longer a primary nuke delivery platform. Its mission was reconnaisance.
All the original A3J (A-5) bomber (actually called 'Attack' because the USN couldn't call them 'Bombers' due to USAF opposition) airframes (which had a very short operational life with only 2 squadrons deployed) were converted to the RA-5C standard.
The USN Heavy Attack mission was supplanted by the introduction of the Polaris SSBN's.
Good vid here (a great example of when the Navy could effectively sell its mission to the wider public) of the Heavy Attack mission, narrated by Walter Cronkite. Dad worked for Joe Tully later on when he was Wing Cdr. by the way.
Originally, I wrote "poor dumb bastard," referring to the pilots, and quoting Patton. "No poor dumb bastard ever won a war . . ."
But, it was affectionate. Those were some brave men. The plane itself was a beast, but standing ready to launch and fly to Vladivostok with a nuke between your legs. That's some scary stuff.
Infamously, the bombbay system on the A-5 never worked properly. When the weapons package would be ejected, it would float behind the aircraft. Even with a nuke, that was bad for accuracy!
Because the Operational life of the aircraft was so short...less than 3 years...it was never fully rectified.
Take a look at that vid. From that launch point south of Italy, take that distance to London or Copenhagen and rotate it eastward...
That show was a direct advertisement to where the actual targets were.
Prior to the SSBN's, the Heavy Attack...and tankered light attack...with its 1300 nm + combat radius posed a significant threat to the southern tier of the USSR.
Check out this pic taken for the 50th anniversary of Naval Aviation that was on the January 1961 Naval Aviation News...
10 of the 18...yes 18... A-3s deployed aboard the Independence (Dad was Ops Officer of the squadron)...and the 8 of 9 deployed aboard the Sara...
VAQ-135 deployed with USS Hancock (CVA-19) in 1973 with EA-3B's. You get used to flight ops aboard Hanna or NGFS on other ships and could sleep through it. But when a Whale trapped it did it with a thud that'd wake you up. The A-3 was beastly. Those A-3's getting airborne seemed like some kind of magic.
Part of my mission was to take an F4, with a B61 and turn part of East Germany (as we styled it) or Czechoslovakia into a glass parking lot....
With the Euro-1 CARC paint, we weren't going Mach 2..... And likely weren't coming back. The official plan involved a 1500 mile volksmarch to Iran... After digging and living in a hole for 2 weeks.
"Russia ... we have learned in the last year that they can be met on the field of battle, and defeated, by a well armed conventional force."
That's a comical way to look at it. Russia is fighting at its own pace. Ukraine is not holding anything at bay, it has lost two armies already and when the end comes it will shatter many rose colored glasses.
But I agree, US nukes should be removed from Europe, Turkey in particular.
Russian forces have struggled to take a town half the size of Waco, TX. And still, fighting rages in Bakhmut. Think Xi was impressed with Russia's military prowess? Nor should we...
Not a bad argument if Russia's primary goal was measured by territory gained. But as Russia has stated, a primary goal is to demilitarize Ukraine. Their operations in Bakhmut support this goal, bleeding Ukraine dry. Expect things to accelerate once the Ukrainian offensive is launched and crushed.
I believe you are right. Apologists who say the B-61s are a useful deterrent or statement or whatever haven't thought the issue through, but I think you can be sure the Russians have. My vote would be to replace them by mobile based nuclear capable cruise missiles.
Apr 18, 2023·edited Apr 18, 2023Liked by CDR Salamander
"If they are NATO weapons, you not only have to get NATO to approve their use, but host nation to as well … in addition to the USA. Do you really think the Russians would not leverage their influence with the useful idiots in the Euro-Green parties, former communists, and general black-block anti-nuke activists to politically of physically stop the use of the nukes, especially in BEL, NLD, DEU, and ITA? "
What is deterrence? Read the above
Just that right there is reason enough to take them back...they'll never get used and the hassle with safety and security alone is just as lengthy and daunting as getting usage authorization.
I will go one step further. I consider our land based ICBMs to be fixed targets and would reduce our strategic nuke force to SLBMs and aircraft armed with extend range cruise missiles. Keeping some ICBMs armed with conventional warheads for a rapid strike 30 minutes anywhere in the world capability
The US could never pull off mobile ICBMs. To keep freedom of movement during exercises, we would have to shut down roads all over the Western states from time to time, like authoritarian Russia. Not gonna fly here.
I know you are being facetious, but there’s a big difference between the flight test of an experimental interplanetary heavy lift first stage and a production IRBM
We have been blowing up rockets for as long as we have been launching them.
Bringing back the minuteman is silly. First, we have the minuteman; LGM-30G Minuteman III. Second, the original Minuteman, like Polaris, was cool, back in the day, but primitive and antiquated today.
No issue with the premise of the piece; we should have unilaterally removed the gravity bombs when NATO expanded. Moreover, we would not have had to modify some of our FMS to accommodate carrying a nuke. But I do take issue with the 'useful idiot' comment regarding the Green Party in Europe. The Greens hold 74 seats in the European Parliament, they are a political force in eight nations, and they are ascendant in beating out the Socialists. Factually, the US would be in a better place if a green party displaced our MAGAs who have shown themselves free of any value. Let's hope the U.S. has a few more clear-eyed greenies before we step off on our next combat operation.
I would have to say the "MAGA" apparently have a better track record with US allies than the current administration which has driven the Saudis away along with apparently bombing a pipeline that was critical infrastructure for a key NATO ally.
The Green Party? Yessiree, the Soviets certainly got their Ruble's worth with all the anti-nuke money they spent here and in Europe during the 80's.
There's a reason why our Western NATO allies and Canada are held in such disdain by knowledgeable people.
Provocative thoughts, but boring old gravity bombs still have a role. That said, beyond me why any are presently stored outside of the US.
The Wohlstetters and Kahns of our past recognized ICBMs are vulnerable to first strike whether afloat or ashore, leaving the nucs parked in the sky as the only assured counter-strike. Should the threat of a true nuclear exchange re-emerge, we'll need to again park nucs in the sky.
As to their efficacy, the rest of the world recognizes we are 2 for 2 in air deliveries. They likewise assume the US would again be successful if pressed to do so.
Like those who ignore old salts to proclaim obsolete the tube artillery, tanks and APCs of the ongoing Russo-Ukraine War, the past suggests we are still at least a generation away from doing away with this most-trusted and cost-effective nuclear capability in our arsenal.
Are we sure we can get our nukes out of Turkey?
I am not, at all....
We should be removing the pits (at least) slowly. If not the entire weapons.
The entire SASS infrastructure should be removed ASAP.
As part of the nuclear modernization program, the old stock in Turkey needs to be replaced (wink wink) with stock that still has service life. Perfect cover to put fakes in.
Ship them out as Baggage, jet engines and or trash in Jet engine containers.
exactly how do you get them out of the Special weapons bunkers that have both Turk a American guards? In theory, after the Minot practice nuke debacle, only nukes are in that bunker, and while the Turk LT on duty may not know how to hotwire a B61, he was drilled on "two man rule" AND "joint custody". He may be told to watch for various surreptitious movement scenarios
Special weapons bunkers only have US Guards. No host nation is allowed to guard them. Or even approach them. That was the case even in the UK on RAF airbases. When Nucs were stored at St Mawgan for use on US P-3 and RAF Nimrod (Nimrod eventually got the UK WE.177 bomb) there was a seperate bomb compound guarded exclusively by US Marines. UK nuclear weapons were in a seperate area guarded by UK forces.
There are standing teams dedicated for just this purpose in theater.
Those teams can disable and even destroy the SASS if they are given time and are not over run.
Should Turkey renounce NATO membership I doubt we could short of a large force Sea, Air and land to retake them.
Nuclear weapons are a political statement as much as military. Would the government classes in those countries accept the withdrawal?
France and GB have their own Force de frappe.
There are no sharing plans in place for France and the United Kingdom at this time.
And there won't ever be. The US nuclear sharing got in before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so was accepted as a fact at the time. The UK and France are signatories so cannot share.
Germany yes, Italy lukewarm, Turkey no.
Poland would ask for them.
Belgium? Netherlands?
Non starter.
Uh, negative.
All of the nations (with the exception of Turkey, as they had to be removed from the programme) have made purchases of weapons specifically to deliver B-61 i.e. F-35. This particularly applies to Germany who are purchasing 35 just for that purpose.
Putin and the Russian ethno-nationalists are certifiably paranoid but removal of the nukes could help lower the temperature by a small degree. The conventional threat the nukes were meant to deter is a phantom. Addition of Finland and perhaps Sweden soon lowers need for nukes by making Russian aggression less likely. It would be a diplomatic win for the US and we desperately need one. In answer to THE Drill SGT's excellent question: I think the Turks would be happy to see them go. Lessens chance of them getting hammered in a Russo-NATO spat. (Opinion comes with the caveat I am frequently wrong). To modify your point, I see all benefit and no cost to removal of the B61s.
The nukes in Turkey are in "dual custody", guarded by Turks on a joint based surrounded by Turks.
If Erdogan wanted them gone, they would be gone if he asked. I view them as 'hostages"
And if Erdogan just 'wanted' them, do you think the security forces could stop them? Assuming the PAL's work is dangerous.
How quick could the Turkish government come up with a hack for the pal once in their hands days or weeks at best
I had a drill sergeant whose previous gig was in an MP company at a depot in Germany. He said it was arranged like Arlington cemetery, perfectly lined up no matter where you were. They ran emergency destruction drills all the time. So might not get much that was very usable.
Different military.
The destruction drills may prevent a nukdet.
They will produce a hell of a dirty bomb, or the material for one.
Fast with Russian help.
Query; Does the old Soviet/Russian Base in Latakia Syria still have it's Nukes?
with the civil war?
That's scary but yes I can't find any info as to when they got pulled out from Fall Of CCCP to Syria war there is still a large base there it seems.
would have evac'ed them if I was Putin.
Pull em; but marry that move with very public re-arming of tactical nuclear missiles onboard Navy platforms of all types.
Let's keep the Surface Navy Clown Show & nukes separate.
Back in The Day, the Surface Navy may well have carried the largest number of "tactical' nukes (and I mean by that, ship v ship and ship v aircraft), considering the numbers of nuke ASROCs and nuke Terriers in the fleet.
Now that our Marines are not permanently deployed to the 'Stan Boxes, let's cut with the Female Engagement Teams and go back to MARDET's on every vessel capable of tacticals. Get our adversaries wondering about the shell game.
Back then the Surface Navy knew how to drive ships.
Gonna' disagree. (Partially.) Move them out of Europe and to the UK.
And if they're removed completely? Putin will crow that his proclaimed movement of nukes to Belarus made the US move them.
That will only make his satellite allies like Iran bolder and further encourage countries like Saudi Arabia to migrate into the Russian sphere.
We could negotiate their removal in exchange for something out of the Russian side (nukes out of Kalingrad?), but unlikely under this administration.
Putin has no reason to compromise by treaty right now.
Why announce their removal? Just sneak 'em out.
Why not get something in return from Russia for their removal?
Saudi is going to go more into Chinas sphere than Russia for economics reasons also doesnt help the Saudis prince feels personal insulted by biden the petrol dollar is on its death bed
He should be insulted. The Qatari played our press and Democrats like a fiddle to the benefit of the Iranians and the Houthi. - Never mind we also extrajudically kill Americans.
Missed off the map is the fact that the other B-61 storage location in Europe is RAF Lakenheath.
The weapons there are for use on US aircraft though (F-35A and F-15E).
I had no idea how perfectly useless our (USA--not NATO) nuclear weapon arsenal was over in Europe and the Middle East. Thanks for the lesson, CDR Salamander.
In the 70's and 80's (when I had a role in tactical delivery) they were a viable weapon option. I doubt the US would have been the first user, Soviet doctrine certainly allowed their first use.
These days? I agree: Everyone has them, nobody will use them. The danger in this status quo is that should someone actually use one, the only logical response would be a strategic exchange. A 'tit for tat' nuking a'la "The Third World War 1985" by General Sir John Hackett? Not these days
There are days I'd wonder if the Euros would have the stones to use them when they need to, especially if it's on behalf of another Euro NATO member rather than their own country. But your point is sound. What about restoring more bombers at Thule on a regular basis? You'd be going over the pole, shorter to fly, or is just you don't like gravity bomb delivered weaponry and reality is they'd just target Thule minute one? Putting a ground launched mobile platform that could handle a nuke cruise missile, or converting some of the new Hypersonic missiles to use nukes (at 55 mil a pop, might be the only logical thing to put on them rather than a conventional warhead for that price), would that better? They can be hidden much easier, stored perhaps in mountain type cave structures and dispersed.
And removing from Turkey, why they are still there begs the question "if" they are still even there, it's just too tempting for takeover if say Erodogan was replaced by someone that was even more anti-Western.
It's not Thule any more - it's been wokeified:
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/new-name-thule-air-base-greenland#:~:text=Thule%20Air%20Base%2C%20the%20Department,in%20the%20U.S.%20Space%20Force.
I know, and I refuse to call it any of their ridiculous names, whether its from a Trans squirrel, Camp lopoff-a-peepee, Camp Rainbow, etc.
Wiki: "Pituffik is a former settlement in northern Greenland, located at the eastern end of Bylot Sound by a tombolo known as Uummannaq, near the current site of the American Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base."
It makes no mention of what Pituffik means in the local language. But блять, blyat ...Bylot Sound? Did some Russian whaling ship visit centuries ago, find the local R&R appalling and sailor say "Phf-f-ft 'Uffik"? "Tombolo", tomboy? "Uummannaq"? I don't even want to know. I'll leave it to an etymologyist to puzzle out. Pituffik looks more isolated than Shemya. Bet you lots of Naval Aviators are happy that's a Space Force base.
My buddy's uncle was a phantom pilot back in the day and he said his uncle did a major league screw up and was told in no uncertain terms that he was going to spend a tour at Thule. I'd imagine it's for those that truly don't like a social atmosphere, or love Polar Bears, LOL.
A tombolo is a sandy or shingle isthmus, from the Italian for pillowy.
When you think about gravity atomic weapons, think about the aviators who had to prepare and train to fly them to the target.
I have been flying on a regional airline. They fly out of a minor airport that has a nice, long runway. A naval air station in the cold war. There’s a plane on a pylon at the entrance to the airport. The plane is a RA-5C Vigilante.
Imagine a pilot, and a bombardier, moving at Mach2 with a big atom bomb under their seats. Carrier launched with a 900 mile range and engines powerful enough to reach the edge of space. The mission was to launch, sprint over the target, yank a lever to let a drogue pull the package out the tail of the bomber, then head back home. It takes some pretty valiant airmen to train for a mission like that. Peacetime operations must have been frightening; the thing was a beast.
The Commander is dead right about the atomic arsenal. The soundest course of action would be to remove the weapons are replace them with training dummies filled with sand. Now is not the time to enter into arms talks with Russia, and removal of the bombs is something we should expect to trade for. Removing the bombs from Turkey removes the risk, and a policy of neither confirming, or denying, there are bombs in Turkey allows us to demand concessions when the time is right. Then we can make a big show of pulling our dummies out, and closing the facility.
"There’s a plane on a pylon at the entrance to the airport. The plane is a RA-5C Vigilante."
My dad was instrumental in getting that airplane placed as the gate guard at Sanford...
I lived on that base. It closed in 1968, and the Wing was moved to the former Turner AFB in Albany Ga.
Dad commanded both a VAH (with A3D's) and an RVAH squadron.
The RA-5C was no longer a primary nuke delivery platform. Its mission was reconnaisance.
All the original A3J (A-5) bomber (actually called 'Attack' because the USN couldn't call them 'Bombers' due to USAF opposition) airframes (which had a very short operational life with only 2 squadrons deployed) were converted to the RA-5C standard.
The USN Heavy Attack mission was supplanted by the introduction of the Polaris SSBN's.
Good vid here (a great example of when the Navy could effectively sell its mission to the wider public) of the Heavy Attack mission, narrated by Walter Cronkite. Dad worked for Joe Tully later on when he was Wing Cdr. by the way.
https://youtu.be/YwZUxJ4QdNo
Originally, I wrote "poor dumb bastard," referring to the pilots, and quoting Patton. "No poor dumb bastard ever won a war . . ."
But, it was affectionate. Those were some brave men. The plane itself was a beast, but standing ready to launch and fly to Vladivostok with a nuke between your legs. That's some scary stuff.
It's a really nice memorial.
Infamously, the bombbay system on the A-5 never worked properly. When the weapons package would be ejected, it would float behind the aircraft. Even with a nuke, that was bad for accuracy!
Because the Operational life of the aircraft was so short...less than 3 years...it was never fully rectified.
Take a look at that vid. From that launch point south of Italy, take that distance to London or Copenhagen and rotate it eastward...
That show was a direct advertisement to where the actual targets were.
Prior to the SSBN's, the Heavy Attack...and tankered light attack...with its 1300 nm + combat radius posed a significant threat to the southern tier of the USSR.
Check out this pic taken for the 50th anniversary of Naval Aviation that was on the January 1961 Naval Aviation News...
10 of the 18...yes 18... A-3s deployed aboard the Independence (Dad was Ops Officer of the squadron)...and the 8 of 9 deployed aboard the Sara...
A potent threat indeed.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-97000/NH-97716.html
Even when VAs had the A-6 Intruder, there were long legs for Naval Aviation.
VAQ-135 deployed with USS Hancock (CVA-19) in 1973 with EA-3B's. You get used to flight ops aboard Hanna or NGFS on other ships and could sleep through it. But when a Whale trapped it did it with a thud that'd wake you up. The A-3 was beastly. Those A-3's getting airborne seemed like some kind of magic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LNxgvN-bhk
https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv19-73/242.htm
Part of my mission was to take an F4, with a B61 and turn part of East Germany (as we styled it) or Czechoslovakia into a glass parking lot....
With the Euro-1 CARC paint, we weren't going Mach 2..... And likely weren't coming back. The official plan involved a 1500 mile volksmarch to Iran... After digging and living in a hole for 2 weeks.
[Douglas A-3B Skywarrior has entered the conversation]
"Russia ... we have learned in the last year that they can be met on the field of battle, and defeated, by a well armed conventional force."
That's a comical way to look at it. Russia is fighting at its own pace. Ukraine is not holding anything at bay, it has lost two armies already and when the end comes it will shatter many rose colored glasses.
But I agree, US nukes should be removed from Europe, Turkey in particular.
It's nice to have the official Russian position down in black and white.
It's nice to have reality down in black and white.
There, I fixed it.
Russian forces have struggled to take a town half the size of Waco, TX. And still, fighting rages in Bakhmut. Think Xi was impressed with Russia's military prowess? Nor should we...
Not a bad argument if Russia's primary goal was measured by territory gained. But as Russia has stated, a primary goal is to demilitarize Ukraine. Their operations in Bakhmut support this goal, bleeding Ukraine dry. Expect things to accelerate once the Ukrainian offensive is launched and crushed.
They've already admitted they cannot 'demiliarise' or the even more ludicrous 'denazify' Ukraine.
They now wish to 'protect' the occupied (i.e. stolen) territories...
Admitted, when?
Xi is happy - Alibaba is still selling truck tires to the Russian Army
Removal from Turkey has nothing to do with NATO, and everything to do with keeping them out of Turkish hands.
I believe you are right. Apologists who say the B-61s are a useful deterrent or statement or whatever haven't thought the issue through, but I think you can be sure the Russians have. My vote would be to replace them by mobile based nuclear capable cruise missiles.
We have the VLS cells in Poland & Romania, IJS.
"If they are NATO weapons, you not only have to get NATO to approve their use, but host nation to as well … in addition to the USA. Do you really think the Russians would not leverage their influence with the useful idiots in the Euro-Green parties, former communists, and general black-block anti-nuke activists to politically of physically stop the use of the nukes, especially in BEL, NLD, DEU, and ITA? "
What is deterrence? Read the above
Just that right there is reason enough to take them back...they'll never get used and the hassle with safety and security alone is just as lengthy and daunting as getting usage authorization.
As they serve no useful purpose, bring them home.
I will go one step further. I consider our land based ICBMs to be fixed targets and would reduce our strategic nuke force to SLBMs and aircraft armed with extend range cruise missiles. Keeping some ICBMs armed with conventional warheads for a rapid strike 30 minutes anywhere in the world capability
Mobile land-based ICBMs?
You don't think SLBM's and bombers are enough? I think that money codl be but to better use, like more ice breakers for the USCG
The US could never pull off mobile ICBMs. To keep freedom of movement during exercises, we would have to shut down roads all over the Western states from time to time, like authoritarian Russia. Not gonna fly here.
Reboot the Midgetman.
Bring back Pershing II.
You guys have no idea how much better our rockets have gotten since the 1980s. Heck, they barely ever explode anymore.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/20/science/spacex-launch-starship-rocket
I know you are being facetious, but there’s a big difference between the flight test of an experimental interplanetary heavy lift first stage and a production IRBM
We have been blowing up rockets for as long as we have been launching them.
Bringing back the minuteman is silly. First, we have the minuteman; LGM-30G Minuteman III. Second, the original Minuteman, like Polaris, was cool, back in the day, but primitive and antiquated today.
No issue with the premise of the piece; we should have unilaterally removed the gravity bombs when NATO expanded. Moreover, we would not have had to modify some of our FMS to accommodate carrying a nuke. But I do take issue with the 'useful idiot' comment regarding the Green Party in Europe. The Greens hold 74 seats in the European Parliament, they are a political force in eight nations, and they are ascendant in beating out the Socialists. Factually, the US would be in a better place if a green party displaced our MAGAs who have shown themselves free of any value. Let's hope the U.S. has a few more clear-eyed greenies before we step off on our next combat operation.
I would have to say the "MAGA" apparently have a better track record with US allies than the current administration which has driven the Saudis away along with apparently bombing a pipeline that was critical infrastructure for a key NATO ally.
The Green Party? Yessiree, the Soviets certainly got their Ruble's worth with all the anti-nuke money they spent here and in Europe during the 80's.
There's a reason why our Western NATO allies and Canada are held in such disdain by knowledgeable people.
Spare me the greens and their Utopian dreams of clean energy.
All right, we got us another KidToucher in the house.
Provocative thoughts, but boring old gravity bombs still have a role. That said, beyond me why any are presently stored outside of the US.
The Wohlstetters and Kahns of our past recognized ICBMs are vulnerable to first strike whether afloat or ashore, leaving the nucs parked in the sky as the only assured counter-strike. Should the threat of a true nuclear exchange re-emerge, we'll need to again park nucs in the sky.
As to their efficacy, the rest of the world recognizes we are 2 for 2 in air deliveries. They likewise assume the US would again be successful if pressed to do so.
Like those who ignore old salts to proclaim obsolete the tube artillery, tanks and APCs of the ongoing Russo-Ukraine War, the past suggests we are still at least a generation away from doing away with this most-trusted and cost-effective nuclear capability in our arsenal.