ironically, wasn't there recently 'leak' of German secret service report about Turkey actually actively supporting IS and other extremism organization ...
even before that Austria gov was talking about it and now this makes quite ripples
it's nothing new tho, his son was actively trading with oil / gas directly with IS
money / weapons swapped hands in hundreds of millions EUR ranges
his daughter was at some point serving in IS hospital
anyway Turkey is ceasing to be the modern secular one ...
the more it incline to religion driven state the worse for Europe ...
also all B-61 shall undergo upgrade to B-61-12 in next 4 years anyway
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50907038]Nobody is gonna attack Turkey as long as it is in NATO.
And only Russia is capable to attack Turkey and Russia is far more likely to attack Baltic countries and Poland then Turkey.
Keeping Turkey would stretch think Russia's front lines and limited war industry significantly. That is if there is hypothetical war with Russia and nobody is mad enough to use nukes.
And if Turkey is out of NATO, not only is there danger for Mediterranean to be contested with Russian navy, but also it would create a massive Greek-Turkish territorial crisis that can easily escalate into a war.
Turkey staying in NATO is an only good option, regardless how much Erdogan pisses you people off.[/QUOTE]
Poland has a big and capable military, i don't know where you got that from. Might as well invade the uk.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50907038]Nobody is gonna attack Turkey as long as it is in NATO.[/QUOTE]Which is why they need us more than we need them, at the end of the day Turkey is quickly becoming a liability that we're responsible for.
[QUOTE]Keeping Turkey would stretch think Russia's front lines and limited war industry significantly. That is if there is hypothetical war with Russia and nobody is mad enough to use nukes.[/QUOTE]Simply being tied to such an unstable nation with [I]an agreement that says we will bring the full force of our military if they're attacked[/I] means that our nuclear arsenal is also tied to them, even if we move the weapons to another country. They could provoke Russia so hard that they hit back, invoke Article 5, and then we're obligated to declare war on another nuclear-armed state and the successor state to our biggest rival.
[QUOTE]And if Turkey is out of NATO, not only is there danger for Mediterranean to be contested with Russian navy, but also it would create a massive Greek-Turkish territorial crisis that can easily escalate into a war.[/QUOTE]Turkey and Russia are not friends and the idea of them entering into an alliance is preposterous, but aside from that it isn't Turkey that's keeping the Russians in check. We're keen on keeping Turkey an ally because of it's position in regards to the Middle East, we have plenty of other nations in NATO with far better navies to patrol the Mediterranean.
Meanwhile if war does spring up because the Turks were stupid enough to shoot at the Greeks then it would mean Greece could invoke Article 5 and then the Turkish military would be squaring off against those same European countries. Oh, and let's not forget, the USAF would be on site and [U]nobody[/U] can match our air power and especially if we're operating from nearby bases.
[QUOTE]Turkey staying in NATO is an only good option, regardless how much Erdogan pisses you people off.[/QUOTE]Yeah, for Turkey. We can easily drop them, support a Kurdish state in the Middle East, back Israel harder since Turkish feelings wouldn't matter anymore, (forgot about them, didn't you?) support stronger cooperation between Arab nations, and of course we could start bolstering up all the little countries that actually are close to Russia but Turkey doesn't like. Right now their easily hurt feelings are the biggest obstacle we face in Southeast Europe and the Middle East, if we stopped caring we could do so, [I]so[/I] much more than we're doing now. We might even be able to prop up a more stable Lebanon and maybe, just maybe, get the Iranians and Israelis to bury one of the many hatchets.
Turkey is a big fucking problem, moving our nukes is the first step to booting their asses out and don't think for a minute it hasn't been talked about a lot recently.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50907616]It was mostly only strategically useful because it made a good nuclear launching platform against Russia, however if we've found a better country for that I don't see much use in keeping Turkey around, particularly with their rather dodgy reputation and potentially aiding our enemies.[/QUOTE]We have, but that's not the important part: Poland and other Baltic states are NATO members and we have always been threatening to put ABM sites right on the fucking border ever since we had the technology. This was a massive concern for Russia after the USSR fell, all these newly independent and also very anti-Russian states were free to join the still-standing NATO that was designed to fight a much, much larger state. Russia was in shambles in the early 90's, their fleets sat rotting in port, some of their pilots went [I]years[/I] without pay and a lot of their aircraft were beginning to deteriorate without any sign of repair or replacement. Most of the army was a corrupt joke, nobody gave enough of a shit to actually guard military depots so a lot of stuff walked right off the base.
Obviously this is no longer the case, the new Russian Federation came from a long line of failed, corrupt states and got into action to try and fix things before it became permanent. Interesting time because the idea of Russia joining NATO was not at all off the table, they qualified (and still do) and it would have been a major boon for world peace. Of course the nature of the organization would have changed, it wouldn't be a solid "USA plus her friends" group anymore, but I don't think that would have been a bad thing at all. Still, it didn't happen, so after Russia got back on her feet and business as usual resumed under a new flag it made Eastern Europe nervous. During this time they kept warning us not to put ABM sites in Eastern Europe and we didn't, much to the dismay of plucky little Poland, but times are and have changed. Right now there really isn't much of a reason why we're not putting ABM sites in Estonia despite their [url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9453544-228c-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html#axzz4HkMdL5Ho]wishes for that very thing[/url] and [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-missile-defense-romania-russia-nato-defenses/]sites in other ex-Soviet states[/url] which are far, far more important than launch sites. Russia has never liked the idea of ABM sites on their border because it puts them at a severe disadvantage, historically they never had this capability and we've become extremely good at it over these past few decades.
See above for why Turkey has worn out it's welcome.
[editline]18th August 2016[/editline]
Oh and I have to mention that Turkey [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/turkey-nato-should-view-syrias-downing-of-a-turkish-jet-as-attacking-whole-military-alliance/]tried in vain[/url] to invoke Article 5 over the 2012 shootdown of one of it's F-4 Phantoms, but was told flat-out to fuck off then and also [url=http://sputniknews.com/world/20160220/1035066264/NATO-turkey-russia-syria.html]more recently[/url] it was made clear that Turkish aggression would not be supported by NATO.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.