1ac reduce tnw from turkey cameron pbs

8/6/2019 1AC Reduce TNW From Turkey Cameron PBS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1ac-reduce-tnw-from-turkey-cameron-pbs 1/33

Reduce Turkey Bombs The Bomb Squad

1

1 Table of Contents-Reducing Tactical Nuclear Weapons from Turkey

2-9 1AC

10 Harms Extensions

13 Inherency Extensions

20 Solvency Extensions

23 A2 Ruins Aliances within NATO

28 Advantage Russia Extensions

30 Advantage Iran Extensions




2

1AC Reduce TNW from Turkey Cameron PBS

Observation I Harms

A. TNWs are susceptible to theft and use by terrorists

Davida Higgin 05 CND and Lakenheath Action GroupUS tactical nuclear weapons in Europe

October 2005 http://www.cnduk.org/pages/binfo/nato2005.pdf

TNW are more vulnerable than strategic nuclear weapons to terrorist acquisition, because of their

generally smaller size, greater numbers, wide distribution, lack of monitoring in many areas, and ease

of use (because they usually have less sophisticated locking and safeguard technology). They are

considered as low yield weapons, with a variable explosive force between 0.1 kilotons and 1

megaton; the US B61s have a variable yield between 0.3 and 170 kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb had a

yield of about 12 kilotons. Thus, TNW can cause enormous damage, death and radiation

contamination, and low yield has to be seen as a purely military/technical term. Moreover, even

without a nuclear detonation, TNW detonated by impact (for example, in a road or air accident, or

deliberately) can cause extremely serious damage by dispersal of highly toxic fine particles of

plutonium.

B. Terrorist Use of Nuclear weapons would be devastating

1. Even a terrorist dirty bomb could kill thousands and paralyze the US.

CDI Terrorism Project ³What if the terrorists go Nuclear?¶ Oct 2001

Extreme versions of such gamma-ray emitting bombs, such as a dynamite-laden casket of spentfuel from a nuclear power plant, would not kill quite as many people as died on Sept. 11. Aworst-case calculation for an explosion in downtown Manhattan during noontime: more than2,000 deaths and many thousands more suffering from radiation poisoning. Treatment of those

exposed would be greatly hampered by inadequate medical facilities and training. The UnitedStates has only a single hospital emergency room dedicated to treating patients exposed toradiation hazards, at Oak Ridge, Tenn. A credible threat to explode such a bomb in a U.S. citycould have a powerful impact on the conduct of U.S. foreign and military policy, and could possibly have a paralyzing effect. Not only would the potential loss of life be considerable, butalso the prospect of mass evacuation of dense urban centers would loom large in the minds of policy-makers.




3

2. A Nuclear terrorist attack will kill hundreds of thousands

CDI Terrorism Project ³What if the terrorists go Nuclear?¶ Oct 2001

The threat from radiological dispersion dims in comparison to the possibility that terrorists could build

or obtain an actual atomic bomb. An explosion of even low yield could kill hundreds of thousands of people. A relatively small bomb, say 15-kilotons, detonated in Manhattan could immediately kill

upwards of 100,000 inhabitants, followed by a comparable number of deaths in the lingering aftermath.

3. The impact is extinction

Sid-Ahmed ± 2004 ± Graduate of Cario University¶s School of Law (54) & Cario University¶s School of Engineering (55) [Mohamed Sid-Ahemd (political analyst for the µAl-Ahram¶ newspaper), ³Extinction! ,́

Al-Ahram Weekly, Issue No. 705, 26 August ± September 2004, pg.http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies

would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights,tensions between civilizations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It wouldalso speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperativeif humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead toa third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which endswhen one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear

pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.




4

Observation II Inherency

A. Nukes in Turkey are of no strategic value

The status of U.S. nuclear weapons in Turkey By Alexandra Bell and Benjamin Loehrke | 23

November 2009 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Today, Turkey hosts an estimated 90 B61 gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base. Fifty of these

bombs are reportedly PDF assigned for delivery by U.S. pilots, and forty are assigned for

delivery by the Turkish Air Force. However, no permanent nuclear-capable U.S. fighter

wing is based at Incirlik, and the Turkish Air Force is reportedly PDF not certified for

NATO nuclear missions,meaning nuclear-capable F-16s from other U.S. bases would

need to be brought in if Turkey's bombs were ever needed. Such a relaxed posturemakes

clear just how little NATO relies on tactical nuclear weapons for its defense any more. In

fact, the readiness of NATO's nuclear forces now is measured in months as opposed to

hours or days. Supposedly, the weapons are still deployed as a matter of deterrence,

but the crux of deterrence is sustaining an aggressor's perception of guaranteed rapid

reprisal--a perception the nuclear bombs deployed in Turkey cannot significantly add to

because they are unable to be rapidly launched. Aggressors are more likely to be

deterred by NATO's conventional power or the larger strategic forces supporting its

nuclear umbrella.




5

1. The US is committed to maintaining Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Turkey,

Obama still sees value of tactical nukes in spite of commitments to disarm

Arms Control Today » October 2009 » Getting to Zero Starts Here: Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Catherine M. Kelleher and Scott L. Warren

The principal issues with the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons are political and

conceptual, rather than straightforwardly military, with the single but critical exception of the

risk of terrorist seizure. The notion of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, with tactical weapons serving as

a real or potential down payment on a security commitment, particularly in Europe, still has

significant traction within the Obama administration. Key factions in the Pentagon and perhaps

in the Department of State argue that the United States must still provide allies substantial

security support, especially with Iran and North Korea deeply engaged in nuclear programs. This

is the case despite the indifference of many NATO allies toward technical weapons or, in some

cases, direct demands for elimination. Some European countries, especially elites in the newercentral and eastern European member states, attach a high symbolic importance to the

deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on European soil as evidence of U.S. security

guarantees. Turkey also is thought to be particularly concerned about any withdrawal because it

faces a more direct threat from Iranian missiles, although it is now included in the new U.S.

plans for a European missile defense system.[3]




6

Plan. The USFG will remove the B61 gravity bombs hosted in Turkey and the

troops and infrastructure that support them.




7

Observation III Solvency

A. Removal eliminates threat of terrorist acquisition

Turkeys Nuclear Crossroads Canapés and Kalashnikovs > Alexandra Bell on August 25, 2009

Alexandra Bell is a Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund and a Truman National Security

Fellow.

Turkey has quietly held NATO tactical nuclear weapons since the Cold War. Removing them will

be a critical step towards a safer world. But it won't be easy.

B. Removal reduces tensions and proliferation

Politics around US tactical nuclear weapons in European host states Claudine Lamond

and Paul Ingram, Basic Getting to Zero Papers, No. 11 January 2009

Turkey has a unique opportunity to play a positive role in promoting non-proliferation.Ending nuclear sharing and fully complying with the NPT would act as a powerfulexample to neighboring states and strengthen Turkey's legitimacy. Moreover, efforts bythe Turkish government to play a leading role in the elimination of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction would receive overwhelming public support.[22]

C. NATO can maintain guarantees to Turkey without TNWs

Arms Control Today » June 2010 » Reassessing the Role of U.S. NuclearWeapons in Turkey

Reassessing the Role of U.S. NuclearWeapons in Turkey Mustafa Kibaroglu

One concern might be the contingencies in which the security situation in Turkeys neighborhood

deteriorates, thereby necessitating the active presence of an effective deterrent against the

aggressor(s). Yet, given the elaborate capabilities that exist within the alliance and the solidarity

principle so far effectively upheld by the allies, extending deterrence against Turkeys rivals should not

be a problem. Turkey would continue to be protected against potential aggressors by the nuclear

guarantees of its allies France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the three NATO nuclear-

weapon states. Turkeys reliance on such a credible deterrent, which will not be permanently

stationed on Turkish territory, is less likely to be criticized by its Middle Eastern neighbors[27] and

should not engender a burden-sharing controversy with its European allies.One cannot argue that once

U.S. nuclear weapons that are stationed in Turkish territory are sent back, the nuclear deterrent of thealliance extended to Turkey will be lost forever. Currently, three NATO members are nuclear-weapon

states. Of the NATO non-nuclear-weapon states, only five, as mentioned above, are known to host U.S.

nuclear weapons. The remaining 20 members have no nuclear weapons on their territories. Yet, these

members enjoy the credible nuclear deterrent of NATO, which remains the most powerful military

organization in the world. Hence, the simple outcome of this analysis is that, for NATO members to feel

confident against the threats posed to their national security, they do not have to deploy U.S. nuclear

weapons on their territory.[28] Turkey need not be an exception to this rule




8

Advantage 1 Russian Nuclear Threat decreased, steps toward disarmament

made.

A. U.S. and Russia on a Path for Conflict

Schorr June 2007- Daniel Schoor (senior news analyst) www.npr.org

Conditions, however, are much different. It must rankle President Vladimir Putin that Poland and the

Czech Republic, once Soviet satellites, are now planning to provide bases for elements of a system that

Putin seems convinced is targeted on Russia. It must also occur to Putin that the Baltic resort where the

G-8 summit is being held was once located in Soviet-dominated East Germany.

In the run-up to the summit, Presidents Bush and Putin have been exchanging some nasty words. Bush

accuses Putin of derailing economic and political reform and suppressing free expression. Putin, in a

Victory Day speech last month in Red Square, without mentioning the United States by name,complained of new threats to human life as during the Third Reich era.

Putin, with billions of dollars a year in oil revenues, apparently feels he can bait an America bogged

down in a war in Iraq. The tension between the two may boil over during the G-8 summit or it may not.

Bush has invited Putin to the senior Bush's compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, on July 1st and 2nd.

Assuming the invitation is not withdrawn, that will provide an opportunity for clearing the air if they are

so minded. But these soulful(ph) days seemed to be over. Clearly, Putin has decided that he no longer

needs to cater to America, the winner of the Cold War. And relations are likely to remain strained as

long as the American president continues to torque up his missile defense plans.

B. Removal of TNWs causes Russians to reduce their weapons and reduces

threat of war.

Davida Higgin 05 CND and Lakenheath Action GroupUS tactical nuclear weapons in Europe


In addition, withdrawal is a precondition for TNW negotiations with Russia, which has a longstanding

desire to rid Europe of nuclear weapons. On June 2nd this year Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov

said, We are prepared to start talks about tactical nuclear weapons only when all countries possessingthem keep these weapons in their own territory. Russia stores its TNW on its own territory, which

cannot be said about other countries. This would pave the way for further reductions in Russian and US

tactical nuclear weapons. A US/Russian arms control and reduction agreement would provide more

secure storage and effective monitoring and verification. This would greatly reduce the opportunities for

terrorist acquisition and the spread of nuclear equipment and technology around the world.




9

Advantage 2 Irans Nuclear threat is decreased

A. Weapons in Turkey encourage Iranian weapons efforts

Arms Control Today » June 2010 » Reassessing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Turkey Mustafa

Kibaroglu

There is a common belief in Turkey that the U.S. weapons constitute a credible deterrent against threats

such as Irans nuclear program and the possible further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region in

response to Tehrans program. Others contend that if Turkey sends the weapons back to the United

States and Iran subsequently develops nuclear weapons, Turkey will have to develop its own such

weapons. These observers argue that even though they are against the deployment of U.S. nuclear

weapons on Turkish soil in principle, the weapons presence in the country will keep Turkey away from

such adventurous policies.[23] Similar views have also been expressed by foreign experts and analysts

who are concerned about Turkeys possible reactions to the developments in Irans nuclear capabilities

in case U.S. nuclear weapons are withdrawn from Turkish territory.[24] The negative effects of the

weapons deployments on Turkish-Iranian relations need to be assessed as well. Some Iranian security

analysts even argue that the deployment of the weapons on Turkish territory makes Turkey a nuclear-

weapon state.[25] There is, therefore, the possibility that the presence of the weapons could actually

spur Iranian nuclear weapons efforts. This issue may well be exploited by the Iranian leadership to

justify the countrys continuing investments in more ambitious nuclear capabilities

B. Nuclear Conflict in the Middle East likely if programs are not checked

The Threat of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation from Turkey Nuclear Awareness Project Media

Backgrounder June 1998

It is very likely that nuclear-armed confrontation is in the future of the middle east if nuclear development is allowed to continue unchecked. Israel already has a well developed nuclear weapons program. Iran has two reactors under construction by the German company KWU, withtwo more to be built there by China. Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed only during the Gulf War.




10

C. Not only will removing TNWs stabilize the region, Turkey is key in dealing with Iran

The status of U.S. nuclear weapons in Turkey By Alexandra Bell and Benjamin Loehrke | 23 November

2009 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

If used properly, Turkey actually can play an important role in this complex process, and theUnited States and its allies should seriously consider Turkish offers to serve as an interlocutor between Iran and the West. First, Ankara's potential influence with Tehran should not beunderestimated. As Princeton scholar Joshua Walker has noted, given its long-established pragmatic relations and growing economic ties with Iran, Ankara is in a position to positivelyinfluence Tehran's behavior. More largely, if the United States and European Union task Turkeywith a bigger role in the diplomatic back-and-forth with Iran, it would help convince Ankara(and others) of Turkey's value to NATO and have the additional benefit of pulling Ankara into acloser relationship with Washington and Brussels. As a result, Turkey would obtain a stronger footing in alliance politics, contain its chief security concerns, and foster the necessaryconditions for the removal of tactical U.S. nuclear weapons from Turkish soil.




11

Harms Extensions

Tactical Nukes in Turkey are Attractive to Terrorists

Turkeys Nuclear Crossroads Canapés and Kalashnikovs > Alexandra Bell on August 25, 2009 Alexandra

Bell is a Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund and a Truman National Security Fellow.

There are approximately 23,335 nuclear weapons held between nine nations: the United States,Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Less widely known arethe five other states that hold nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, NATO deployednonstrategic or ³tactical´ nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, andTurkey. Today these aging weapons are more of a liability than an asset²their size and portability makes them attractive to terrorists.

Tactical Nukes in Turkey are liable to theft.



Nevertheless, there are hints of change to come. Robert Einhorn, an adviser to Secretary of

State Hillary Rodham Clinton, floated one idea in a presentation at the July STRATCOM

conference. Einhorn, who said he was speaking personally rather than in his official capacity,

said the United States might consider removing some or all of its tactical nuclear weapons

from Europe to encourage Russia to consolidate its own arsenal of nonstrategic bombs.[11]

Einhorn argued that tactical nuclear weapons have minimal, if any, military value in Europe andthat their previous deterrent value is no longer relevant to the current debate. He emphasized

the common U.S.-Russian need to think about current security requirements, particularly the

need to secure nuclear weapons and materials against terrorist theft.

Nuclear materials are stolen at an alarming rate

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was quoted on

October 28th

2008

The number of incidents reported to the Agency involving the theft or loss of nuclear or radioactive

material is disturbingly high . . . , he continued to say Equally troubling is the fact that much of this

material is not subsequently recovered. Sometimes material is found which had not been reported

missing.




12

Nuclear terrorism is our biggest threat

Valerie PlameWilson, CNN.com April 8, 2010 Nuclear terrorism is most urgent threat

But I did not lose my belief that the danger of nuclear terrorism was the most urgent threat we face.

Nor did I lose my passion for working, albeit in a new way, to address that threat. I am working onthis issue now as part of the international Global Zero movement, in which political, military and faith

leaders, experts and activists strive for the worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons.

We know that terrorist groups have been trying to buy, build or steal a bomb.

In the past two decades, there have been at least 25 instances of nuclear explosive materials being

lost or stolen. There is enough highly enriched uranium, or HEU, in the world today to build more

than 100,000 bombs.

Terrorists looking to buy or steal HEU could look to the approximately 40 countries with nuclear

weapons materials. And then there are rogue individuals out there who are running black markets

selling nuclear materials and technology.

Pakistan's Dr. A. Q. Khan did it for years before my group at the CIA brought him down in December

2003 after catching him red-handed selling a full-scale nuclear bomb to Moammar Gadhafi's regimein Libya.

If terrorists manage to get their hands on enough HEU, they could smuggle it into a target city, build

a bomb and explode it. A hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium could fit in a shoebox, and

100,000 shipping containers come into the United States every day

A stolen nuclear weapon would be devastating

The Huffington Post ± April 11, 2010 ± Obama: Al Qaeda Would Use Nuclear Weapon If It Could ± http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/11/obama-al-qaeda-nuclear_n_533409.html

"The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the

possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said. "This is something that

could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come. If there wasever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically,

politically and from a security perspective would be devastating," the President said. "We know thatorganizations like al-Qaida are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of

mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them.´




13

US Nukes in Turkey are destabilizing to the region

Inspecting illegal nuclear weapons Feature story ± Greenpeace May 24, 2005

"These US nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey are a danger to regional stability and global

security",says Aslýhan Tümer, our Nuclear Disarmament campaigner in theMediterranean,"We're

bearing witness, and calling on Prime minister Erdogan to say no to any US nuclear weapons in Turkey"




14

Inherency Extensions

NuclearWeapons unnecessary for Turkeys Security



Turkey has a vastly superior military force and would not be directly threatened by Iran (a few people I

spoke to flippantly noted that it was Israel who would be in trouble). Nevertheless, nations acquire

nuclear weapons not only for security, but also for pride and prestige. Having a nuclear capability

elevates a nation into an elite, if dubious, club.

Tactical

Nukes in

Turkey are of no strategic value.



The weapons, however, are no longer integral to the NATO military mission. In fact, their readiness

posture is such that it would take months to prepare them for battle.




15

Nukes in Turkey are of no strategic value



Today, Turkey hosts an estimated 90 B61 gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base. Fifty of these bombs

are reportedly PDF assigned for delivery by U.S. pilots, and forty are assigned for delivery by the

Turkish Air Force. However, no permanent nuclear-capable U.S. fighter wing is based at Incirlik,

and the Turkish Air Force is reportedly PDF not certified for NATO nuclear missions,meaning

nuclear-capable F-16s from other U.S. bases would need to be brought in if Turkey's bombs were

ever needed. Such a relaxed posturemakes clear just how little NATO relies on tactical nuclear

weapons for its defense any more. In fact, the readiness of NATO's nuclear forces now is

measured in months as opposed to hours or days. Supposedly, the weapons are still deployed

as a matter of deterrence, but the crux of deterrence is sustaining an aggressor's perception of

guaranteed rapid reprisal--a perception the nuclear bombs deployed in Turkey cannot

significantly add to because they are unable to be rapidly launched. Aggressors are more likely

to be deterred by NATO's conventional power or the larger strategic forces supporting its

nuclear umbrella.




16

Turkish Air Force not involved in use of TNWs



Turkey has hosted U.S. nuclear weapons since intermediate-range Jupiter missiles were deployed there

in 1961 as a result of decisions made at the alliances 1957 Paris summit. Those missiles were withdrawn

in 1963 in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis. Since then, no nuclear missiles have been stationed

in Turkey. The only nuclear weapons that have been deployed are the bombs that would be delivered by

U.S. F-16s or Turkish F-100, F-104, and F-4 Phantom aircraft at air bases in Eskisehir, Malatya (Erhac),

Ankara (Akinci/Murted), and Balikesir.[12] All such weapons, whether on U.S. or Turkish aircraft, have

been under the custody of the U.S. Air Force.

Turkey still hosts these U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on its territory, albeit in much smaller

numbers.[13] They are limited to one location, the Incirlik base near Adana on the eastern

Mediterranean coast of Turkey.[14] All other nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the bases

mentioned above.[15] Moreover, the Turkish air force no longer has any operational link with theremaining tactical nuclear weapons deployed at Incirlik.[16] F-104s have not been in service since 1994.

F-4s are still in service after modernization of some 54 of them by Israeli Aerospace Industries in 1997.

Yet, only the F-16 Fighting Falcons of the Turkish air force participate in NATO`s nuclear strike

exercises known as Steadfast Noon, during which crews are trained in loading, unloading, and

employing B61 tactical nuclear weapons.[17] The Turkish aircraft in these exercises serve as a non-

nuclear air defense escort rather than a nuclear strike force.[18]




17

Turkish Citizens favor withdrawal of TNW

Politics around US tactical nuclear weapons in European host states Claudine Lamond and

Paul Ingram, Basic Getting to Zero Papers, No. 11 January 2009

There is a rising sentiment amongst the population for the removal of US nuclear weapons fromTurkish territory. In a recent survey,[20] more than half the respondents stated that they areagainst nuclear weapons being stationed in Turkey. Almost 60% of the Turkish population wouldsupport a government request to remove the nuclear weapons from their country, and 72% saidthey would support an initiative to make Turkey a nuclear-free zone.[21] There may be severalcauses behind this sentiment, including the Iraq War, Turkish relations with neighboring states, budget expenditure and the moral concern over nuclear weapons. The historic precedence of Greece, a NATO member and Turkey's historic rival, ending its commitment to nuclear sharingin NATO may have further strengthened this tendency.

Turkish citizens are either unaware of or disapprove of US Nukes

Inspecting illegal nuclear weapons Feature story ± Greenpeace May 24, 2005

Polling data in Turkey has shown that less thanhalf of the population is aware that US nuclear weapons

are actuallypresent in their country, and 72% support Turkey being a nuclear freezone.




18

Better relations are key to withdrawal in Turkey



Preventing Turkey (and any other country in the region) from acquiring nuclear weapons is critical to

international security. Doing so requires a key factor that also is essential to paving the way toward

withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons: improved alliance relations. The political and strategic compasses

are pointing to the eventual withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe--it's a strategy that certainly

fits the disarmament agenda President Barack Obama has outlined. But to get there, careful diplomacy

will be required to improve U.S.-Turkish ties and to assuage Turkish security concerns.




19

Attitudinal Inherency: Nukes in Turkey are a relic of the Cold War



For more than 40 years, Turkey has been a quiet custodian of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons. During the

Cold War, Washington positioned intermediate-range nuclear missiles and bombers there to serve as a

bulwark against the Soviet Union (i.e., to defend the region against Soviet attack and to influence Soviet

strategic calculations). In the event of a Soviet assault on Europe, the weapons were to be fired as one

of the first retaliatory shots. But as the Cold War waned, so, too, did the weapons' strategic value. Thus,

over the last few decades, the United States has removed all of its intermediate-range missiles from

Turkey and reduced its other nuclear weapons there through gradual redeployments and arms control

agreements.

There are US nuclear weapons in Turkey

Trend, July 10, 2010

Turkey has nuclear weapons of the U.S, NATO Ex-Secretary General George Robertson wasquoted as saying by the TME TURK Web site.He said that these weapons are kept in theIncirlik military base of U.S in Turkey's territory. According to the source, the number of theseweapons in turkey is 40-90.




20

Symbolic InherencyTacticalNukes are more of a problem than they are worth



Strategically, the weapons have little real value in the post-Cold War climate. They are vulnerable to arogue or terrorist attack, too small or risky for independent military use, and unpopular with military

forces and most political audiences. Lately, maintaining these weapons has provided many more

disadvantages than advantages for the countries that possess them in their arsenalsFrance, Russia,

the United Kingdom, and the United Statesat least as measured in terms of the costs of safety and

security, of the operational burden of dedicating and preserving delivery aircraft, and of

ensuring ongoing certification of forces. Even within NATO, for all but a few countries, tactical weapons

have come to represent a decreasingly meaningful symbolic commitment rather than a concrete

deterrent or escalation tripwire. From a U.S. standpoint, the relatively low numbers of such weapons

that still exist, at approximately 1,000 in the U.S. arsenal with only 20-25 percent of that number located

outside U.S. borders, would seem to make it easy to secure and verify their ultimate elimination.[2]

Tactical Nukes are still seen as a symbol of support and security

The Utility of U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in NATO: A European Perspective

Oliver Schmidt Proliferation Analysis, April 27, 2010 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Militarily, the antiquated tactical U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe serve little to no purpose to NATO. But they remain a valuable bargaining chip and a strong symbol of U.S. security

assurance to its European allies and partners.




21

Solvency

NuclearWeapons unnecessary for Turkeys Security



Turkey has a vastly superior military force and would not be directly threatened by Iran (a few people I

spoke to flippantly noted that it was Israel who would be in trouble). Nevertheless, nations acquire

nuclear weapons not only for security, but also for pride and prestige. Having a nuclear capability

elevates a nation into an elite, if dubious, club.

TNWs are not the only way to maintain NATO commitment to Turkey, outdated

Arms Control Today » October 2009 » Getting to Zero Starts Here: Tactical Nuclear Weapons Catherine M. Kelleher and Scott L. Warren

The issues have now changed, however, and the mechanisms needed to provide reassurance

and to allow for consultation on nuclear matters should be updated and changed as well.

Moreover, a physical down payment of tactical nuclear weapons as the only credible evidence

of U.S. commitment seems a concept long since overtaken by the enduring interactions of the

transatlantic community. It is also well out of step with current military thinking and practice or

even the logical requirements of extended deterrence doctrine.




22

Other weapons can deter, NATO Commitment to Turkey is not dependent on TNW



One concern might be the contingencies in which the security situation in Turkeys neighborhood

deteriorates, thereby necessitating the active presence of an effective deterrent against the

aggressor(s). Yet, given the elaborate capabilities that exist within the alliance and the solidarity

principle so far effectively upheld by the allies, extending deterrence against Turkeys rivals should not

be a problem. Turkey would continue to be protected against potential aggressors by the nuclear

guarantees of its allies France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the three NATO nuclear-

weapon states. Turkeys reliance on such a credible deterrent, which will not be permanently

stationed on Turkish territory, is less likely to be criticized by its Middle Eastern neighbors[27] and

should not engender a burden-sharing controversy with its European allies.One cannot argue that once

U.S. nuclear weapons that are stationed in Turkish territory are sent back, the nuclear deterrent of the

alliance extended to Turkey will be lost forever. Currently, three NATO members are nuclear-weapon

states. Of the NATO non-nuclear-weapon states, only five, as mentioned above, are known to host U.S.nuclear weapons. The remaining 20 members have no nuclear weapons on their territories. Yet, these

members enjoy the credible nuclear deterrent of NATO, which remains the most powerful military

organization in the world. Hence, the simple outcome of this analysis is that, for NATO members to feel

confident against the threats posed to their national security, they do not have to deploy U.S. nuclear

weapons on their territory.[28] Turkey need not be an exception to this rule




23

Better relations are key to withdrawal from Turkey



Preventing Turkey (and any other country in the region) from acquiring nuclear weapons is critical to

international security. Doing so requires a key factor that also is essential to paving the way toward

withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons: improved alliance relations. The political and strategic compasses

are pointing to the eventual withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe--it's a strategy that certainly

fits the disarmament agenda President Barack Obama has outlined. But to get there, careful diplomacy

will be required to improve U.S.-Turkish ties and to assuage Turkish security concerns.




24

A2Withdrawal Harms Alliances

Withdrawal of NTWs does not harm close alliances



Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and Belgium host US B-61 'gravity' bombs that, in the event of war

or hostilities, could be delivered by aircraft and pilots from the host nation (with the exception of

Turkey, which simply hosts a US base deploying B-61s). These host states could op-out of the

arrangement without the loss of security or political influence within NATO. US nuclear weapons have

been withdrawn from other allies, such as South Korea, Japan, Greece and the United Kingdom, while

maintaining strong and close alliances




25

A2 Turkey will feel a lack of commitment.

Including Turkey solves for security concerns



By incorporating Ankara into its new European missile defense plans--intended to protectTurkey and other countries vulnerable to Iran's short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles--Washington could further shore up its military relationship with Turkey. Ship-based Aegismissile systems will be the backbone of the strategy, with considerations left open for later deployments of mobile ground-based interceptors in Eastern Europe or Turkey. This cooperationcould provide the bond with Washington and perception of security that Turkey seeks in the faceof a potential Iranian bomb.




26

(Could be used as extension to Russian advantage)

R educing Tactical Nukes in Turkey key to reductions in the R ussian arsenal and gives

Turkey a sense of security.

The status of U.S. nuclear weapons in Turkey By Alexandra Bell and Benjamin Loehrke | 23 November2009 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Because Russia weighs significantly in Turkish security calculations, reductions to Russianstrategic and nonstrategic nuclear arsenals also would help improve Ankara's peace of mind. TheUnited States and Russia soon will seek ratification of a follow-on agreement to START. Andtreaty negotiations in pursuit of further reductions to the U.S. and Russian arsenals shouldinvolve forward-deployed nuclear weapons, including the U.S. weapons in Turkey. During anysuch negotiations, Turkey must be fully confident in NATO and U.S. security guarantees.Critically, any removal of the weapons in Turkey would need to happen in concert with efforts to prevent Iran from turning its civil nuclear energy program into a military one. Otherwise,

Washington would risk compromising Turkey as a NATO ally and key regional partner.




27

Nato/US Turkey relations improving



The U.S.-Turkish relationship cooled when Turkey refused to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom,

after which Turkish support for U.S. policy declined through the end of the George W. Bush

administration. Obama's election has helped to mend fences, and his visit to Turkey in April was warmly

received. In fact, all of the administration's positive interactions with Turkey have been beneficial:

Washington has supported Turkey's role as a regional energy supplier and encouraged Ankara as it

undertakes difficult political reforms and works to resolve regional diplomatic conflicts. For its part,

Turkey recently doubled its troop contribution to NATO's Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan--a

boon to U.S. efforts there.




28

Ship based missile defense can protect Turkey from an Iranian threat.



By incorporating Ankara into its new European missile defense plans--intended to protect Turkey and

other countries vulnerable to Iran's short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles--Washington could

further shore up its military relationship with Turkey. Ship-based Aegis missile systems will be the

backbone of the strategy, with considerations left open for later deployments of mobile ground-based

interceptors in Eastern Europe or Turkey. This cooperation could provide the bond with Washington and

perception of security that Turkey seeks in the face of a potential Iranian bomb.




29

Advantage 1 Russian Arms Reduction

R eduction of Tactical Nukes a crucial icebreaker in overall reductions with R ussia



Even proportionate reductions would leave the Russians with a larger arsenal, but such cuts

could be an effective component of a larger bargain involving tactical and strategic weapons.

Such cuts could mark a crucial icebreaker, demonstrating the overall U.S. commitment to

making real progress toward a world without nucle.ar weapons. Some officials within the

Obama administration seem to recognize this point. It will remain challenging to sell this

argument to congressional opponents and domestic critics on the right who accuse the Obama

administration of being soft on the Russians, weak on defense, and generally having an overall

naïve worldview. The military establishment will likely present a less difficult sell, given its

fundamental dislike of these weapons and the taxing formal and informal requirements fortheir deployment.[10]

Removal key to Russian disarmament



Negotiations with Russia will not prove easier. The number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons is

significantly higher than that of the active U.S. forces or stockpiles, and the Russians assign them greater

strategic importance in offsetting conventional weakness and deterring future threats from their south

and east. There are also clear competitive political stakes. Official Russian statements have explicitly tied

drawdowns in tactical weapons to a general geopolitical rebalancing, given U.S. conventional superiority

and the ongoing Russian opposition to NATO expansion, past and future. The Russians have also

stated that they will not consider reducing their tactical nuclear stockpile until all U.S. weapons are

removed from European territory. As a principle, they have essentially declared that all tactical weapons

should be based on national territories of nuclear-weapon states.[4]




30

US is key to withdrawal of TNW

Davida Higgin 05 CND and Lakenheath Action Group´US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe´


Writing in the Financial Times (23rd June 2005), the late Robin Cook and Robert Macnamara stated,

It will be up to Europes leaders to push Washington to remove the remaining U.S. nuclear weapons

deployed in Europe and to push Russia to agree to meaningful talks on verifiable tactical nuclear

weapons reductions... The decisions we take now will help determine the safety of the world we

bequeath to our children. The task of dealing with this dangerous legacy of the Cold War will not be

simple but it must be done, and soon.




31

Advantage 2. Iran Relations

Nuclear Power production is a step to NuclearWeapons



The dark underside of nuclear power has always been its potential for nuclear weapons proliferation, either through the reprocessing of spent fuel to produce plutonium - - an inevitable byproduct of reactor operation - - or through the transfer of sensitive nuclear information,technology and materials. Canadian nuclear cooperation with India and Pakistan provides achilling example of how the transfer of so-called "civilian" nuclear technology can contributedirectly and indirectly to the development of nuclear weapons. Canada provided the technologyat the foundation of the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs and continues to provide vitalinformation and assistance to maintain those programs through the CANDU Owners Group(COG).The Turkish Electricity Generation and Transmission Company (TEAS - - a state-owned

utility) is expected to soon make a long-awaited announcement about the winner of a bidding process to build a nuclear power station at Akkuyu Bay on the Mediterranean. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is bidding to sell two 700 MW CANDU reactors to Turkey at a cost of about $4 billion (CDN). It is bidding against a German/French consortium (Nuclear Power International - NPI - is a cooperative venture between Siemens/KWU and the French nationalnuclear company Framatome). The third consortium bidding is a partnership of Westinghouseand Mitsubishi.

Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons

Leon Panetta, World Tribune.com June 28, 2010

Give Leon Panetta points for candor. The CIA director has offered the frankest assessment to date

from the U.S. intelligence community about Iran's nuclear progress and America's plans to stop

Tehran from acquiring the bomb. Appearing on ABC's Sunday show "This Week," Mr. Panetta buried

for good the discredited and politically motivated 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed

that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003. Now the agency, which helped put together that

report, believes the Iranians are close to acquiring multiple bombs. "We think they have enough low-

enriched uranium right now for two weapons," Mr. Panetta said. "They do have to enrich it, fully, in

order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a

year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to

make that viable." He said Iran also continues to develop missiles and warheads.




32

Nuclear Conflict in the Middle East likely if programs are not checked



It is very likely that nuclear-armed confrontation is in the future of the Middle East if nuclear development is allowed to continue unchecked. Israel already has a well developed nuclear weapons program. Iran has two reactors under construction by the German company KWU, withtwo more to be built there by China. Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed only during the Gulf War.

Turkey can be key in non-proliferation



Turkey has a unique opportunity to play a positive role in promoting non-proliferation. Endingnuclear sharing and fully complying with the NPT would act as a powerful example toneighboring states and strengthen Turkey's legitimacy. Moreover, efforts by the Turkish

government to play a leading role in the elimination of nuclear and other weapons of massdestruction would receive overwhelming public support.[22]

1ac reduce tnw from turkey cameron pbs

Documents