What’s Going on? Contradictory Reports Regarding US Nukes on Incirlik Airbase

Incirlik Air Base, on the outskirts of the city of Adana, southern Turkey (File)


Contradictory reports spread across the Web regarding the relocation of US nuclear weapons from Incirlik Airbase. Sputnik provides an overview of recent developments around the base.

On Monday, the Stimson Center, a Washington DC-based nonprofit think tank, released a report, urging policymakers in the US to remove B61 nuclear bombs from Europe and strengthen conventional forces instead.

Next day, on August 16th, Russian media outlet Izvestia cited Igor Morozov, a member of the Russia’s Federation Council (upper chamber of Russian parliament), former member of parliamentary committee on international affairs, saying: “It just remains to come to an agreement with Erdogan that we get the NATO base Incirlik as [our] primary airbase… You’ll see, the next base will be Incirlik.” This information has been published in The Times today, on August 20th.

Later, on Thursday, August 18th, Sputnik reported information initially published by Brussels-based EurActiv news outlet saying that the US forces have started an operation of relocation of its nuclear weapons from Incirlik to Deveselu base in Romania.

In about an hour since the initial report on Sputnik, Romanian Foreign Ministry officially denied that the country is going to host the US nuclear weapons in a letter to Russian RIA Novosti news agency.

Later that day Sputnik attempted to contact the US Department of Defense, but its spokesman Adam Stump declined to either confirm or deny the information.

Yesterday, on August 19th, Foreign Policy published an article, named “No, the the U.S. Is Not Moving Its Nukes From Turkey to Romania.” The article quotes a nuclear weapons expert Jeffrey Lewis, calling the information unlikely. According to Lewis, Romania lacks the required infrastructure needed to store the weapons safely. Unfortunately, Foreign Policy did not provide any official confirmation or denial for the message.

On August 20th, World Bulletin published an article citing Amy Woolf, a researcher for nuclear weapons policy for the U.S. Congressional Research Service. According to Woolf, the nuclear weapons at Incirlik cannot be used, because they required a massive bomber that could drop them.

On August 20th, the Prime Minister of Turkey Binali Yildirim said that Russia could possibly use country’s southern Incirlik Air Base if it becomes necessary. He also added that up to this point, Russia had no need for this base.

What’s really going on at Incirlik?

While it’s clearly impossible to say for sure, there are some more publications on the Web that drop hints at what may be happening.

There are reports on various websites citing a Tweet posted on August 16th by Ibrahim Karagul, a chief editor of Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak, saying “Nuclear weapons at Incirlik should be transferred to Turkey. Or Turkey should take these weapons into its own hands.”

While this is solely a personal opinion of a particular Turkish citizen, it is interesting in connection with another publication.


On August 17th, a Turkish journalist Taha Dagli has published an analytic article at Haber7 media outlet. Russian InoSMI news agency has provided a translation of the article. According to Taha Dagli, the original report by Stimson Center implies that, should unrest and chaos spike in Turkey, the nuclear weapons at Incirlik may fall into hands of Turkey, Russia and Iran.

These weapons could be reverse engineered and reproduced, Dagli says. Thus, Turkey or even Iran may get their own nuclear weapons, based on reverse-engineered American bombs. But why would Turkey aim to capture these bombs if it does not have a plane capable of delivering them?

Dagli assumes that this could be used as an excuse for actions against Turkey, as it happened with the occupation of Iraq, which was justified by “fabricated nuclear weapons reports, saying ‘Iraq produces nuclear weapons'”, Dagli writes. Westerners find the journalist’s concerns to be without merit.

“There was a great hope in July 15th, and the main source of this hope was Incirlik Airbase,” he writes, referring to a failed coup attempt in Turkey. “All designs have failed, but, apparently, there are new plans being constructed involving Incirlik.”

The B61 bombs stored at Incirlik, have first been put on service in 1968. But since then they have been upgraded many times, the last time being in 2012, which make an arguably contemporary weapon.

Sputnik will continue to monitor the developments around Incirlik.

Man Who Wrote About US Nukes Moving From Turkey Stands by His Report

The Hound Dog was an air-launched supersonic nuclear missile designed to destroy heavily defended ground targets.


Georgi Gotev, the author of an article about the US transferring its nuclear weapons in Turkey to Romania, insists that the information obtained from his own sources can be trusted, and promised to follow up on this subject.

“I’m sure that my sources are trustworthy, that’s why I wrote this article. I realize that the Romanian authorities are denying this. I knew they would as I contacted them before I published it. This is a secret matter, but I thought that my sources are reliable enough to justify the publication of this information,” Georgi Gotev, a journalist working with the news portal EurActiv.com, said in an interview with online newspaper Romania Libera.He said he planned a follow up story on this subject even though everything he writes about Romania invariably causes a scandal.

Georgi said that after the transfer of US nuclear bombs from the Incirlik air base came against the background of worsening relations between Washington and Ankara. “After the recent failed coup Turkey is exiting the western camp and is turning towards Russia,” Gotev noted.

“This is a tectonic movement that is bigger than a mere transfer of weapons, even nuclear. There is an extremely dynamic geopolitical context here. The Moscow-Ankara-Tehran axis now in the making would radically change the situation the region,” he emphasized.

Earlier, the Brussels-based online paper EurActive.com reported citing its own sources, that the United States had started transferring its nuclear munitions in Turkey to the Derveselu air base in Romania.

Romania dismissed the report as untrue. Another source told EurActiv.com that relations between Washington and Ankara had deteriorated so much since last month’s failed coup that the US no longer trusted Turkey to host nuclear weapons.

In an interview with RIA Novosti, Georgi Gotev said that he had been advised not to go ahead with the publication he had received from his own sources.,

“Before publishing this material I consulted with geopolitical guru George Friedman (the founder of the US independent research center Stratfor). He advised me not to publish this because no one in the know of the matter would say anything because, otherwise they could wind up in jail for 30 years,” Georgi said.

According to one source, the transfer of nuclear weapons is a highly challenging process, both technically and politically.

“It’s not easy to move 20+ nukes,” said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

US Won’t Apologize for ‘Test Blasts’ at Hiroshima, Nagasaki that Killed 226,000

This Sept. 8, 1945 picture shows an allied correspondent standing in the rubble in front of the shell of a building


Contrary to a popular assertion that nuclear bombs used on civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end World War II, US government documents have indicated that the atomic-bomb atrocities were “test blasts” to “justify” weapons development expense.

On Tuesday, the 71st anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki, a massacre just three days after the annihilation of some 146,000 people in Hiroshima, the White House has again refused to issue an apology to the people of Japan for what some historians call an act of genocide.Many in the United States believe that, despite the carnage, the use of the weapons was a necessary evil to bring about a quick end to World War II.

Recently, the Obama Administration has set about to increase and make more usable the US nuclear weapon stockpile, budgeting some $1 trillion over the next 30 years toward “nuclear modernization,” while Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump states blandly, “why can’t we use them?”

To mark the anniversary of the Nagasaki attack, Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down with Kevin Kamps, an activist with the radioactive watchdog organization Beyond Nuclear.

Why does the White House refuse to apologize and why is it upgrading nuclear weapons?

“It is a very dangerous time that we are in with these upgrades. The US is upgrading its nuclear arsenal at a cost of $1 trillion over the next 30 years, under the Obama Administration, from someone who, in Prague, who said in 2009, that we need to get rid of these things,” stated Kamps.

“One of the historic failures to live up to an opportunity was when Obama visited Hiroshima and talked about the horror of the nuclear bomb — which was good — but the thing he left out, incredibly enough, was the impact of the radioactivity on people from the bombs,” said the activist. “He talked about the blast and the fire, but he didn’t mention the radioactivity, which is a huge component of a nuclear weapons, and is why those who survive the bombing are still dying from the bombing to this day, because they have fatal cancers and diseases, including genetic damage.”

“There are huge opportunities to try to abolish these things and learn those lessons that are being missed,” stated Kamps.

Why was the second bomb dropped in Nagasaki after the horror of Hiroshima?

“The death toll was measured in the tens of thousands of lives lost in the instant of being vaporized at ground zero,” said Kamps. “The reason why the [second] bomb was dropped, three days later, was that the first bomb was a uranium bomb and they knew that it was going to work because they had tested it before they dropped it on Hiroshima, killing 100,000 people instantly. The second bomb was a plutonium bomb, a more complicated bomb, and they had to test it to determine if it would really work.”

“The US did test the bomb Trinity in New Mexico a few weeks earlier, and it did work in New Mexico, and it did work in Nagasaki, and these were tests actually,” said the activist. “An expert actually got his hands on the primary documents from the US government for the committee that was responsible for determining the targets for these bombs, and they spoke in these terms that these were ‘test blasts.'”

“Later the Department of Energy provided a list of the test blasts that they had done,” said Kamps. “What were the first three? Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and when he called attention to this they quickly changed the documents so that they did not list Hiroshima and Nagasaki as test blasts. That’s what they were.”

“The US had spent billions of dollars of 1940s money on these projects, they had spent all of this money, and in their mind they had to justify the expenditure.”

The Road to Armageddon



Are the U.S. and NATO on the road to Armageddon, making a fatal error in gambling that Russia and China are the same post- war devastated countries of half a century ago?


John V Subscribe to John V

The author is a UK citizen, an English and social science teacher living in SE Asia. Не currently works in PR China.


The Past


Cuba – American Victory or Russian Compromise

Following the historic overthrow in the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961 (1,300 CIA trained and funded Cuban exiles) Castro was wary of another invasion attempt and invited Russian missiles into Cuba. Meanwhile, the US had installed nuclear missiles in both Turkey and Italy in 1961. Consequently, Russia saw this as an opportunity to place its own missiles in America’s backyard.


The Pentagon urged a full-scale U.S. invasion of Cuba, backed by massive naval and air power.


All Kennedy’s advisors, including Secretary of defence McNamara and Vice President Johnson, recommended an American invasion of Cuba, which would have guaranteed a nuclear war. Fortunately, Kennedy forbade the U.S. military to invade Cuba. Moreover, but unknown at the time, Soviet troops received authorisation to use 100 tactical nuclear weapons against any invading force and their bases in South Florida.


With both sides set on a crash course, on the 26 October 1962, a personal letter to Kennedy arrived from Khrushchev with a deal. If America withdrew its missiles from Turkey and Italy and give a cast iron guarantee not to invade Cuba, Russia would turn its ships around and withdraw the missiles from Cuba. A compromise reached, Kennedy accepted and both sides saved face.


A CBS broadcast on the 28th of October 1962 proclaimed that America had emerged, “from under the most terrible threat of a nuclear Holocaust since the second world war […] a humiliating defeat for Soviet policy”. Meanwhile, Russia stated that it was, “Yet another triumph for Moscow’s peace-loving foreign policy over warmongering imperialists […] the supremely wise, always reasonable Soviet leadership had saved the world from the threat of nuclear destruction.”


Did the propaganda version of victory mislead America into the self-complacency seen today and an over reliance on military action to resolve its future political problems?


The Present


Confidence is high

“In face of the U.S. harassment, Beijing should deal with Washington tactfully and prepare for the worst” – China, Global Times

“We were ready to do this … (Use of nuclear weapons against NATO) Crimea is our historical territory. Russian people live there. They were in danger. We cannot abandon them” – Putin, Crimea: The Road Back Home.


Obama, a former Chicago political activist threatens Russia and China at the UN: “I lead the strongest military the world has ever known” – 70th session of the UN general assembly.


The roots of America’s current belligerence lie in the private ownership of its currency, privatised by Woodrow Wilson in 1919, the now U.S. Federal Reserve. Like any privatised business, the Federal Reserve relies on a customer base, but as its customers dwindled, the future consequences forced America into protection racketeering, and manipulation to save its usury power. Today, this intervention translates to regime change and removing those who won’t agree. In other words, the U.S. produces dollars and the world peripheries produce to sell for those dollars, consequently, this means the U.S. has been living free by printing pieces of private profit-making paper for decades.


“In 1973 President Nixon asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In return, Nixon offered military protection for Saudi oilfields. The same offer was extended to each of the world’s key oil producing countries, and by 1975 every member of OPEC had agreed to only sell oil in U.S. dollars.”



In a world-wide economic recession, the world is finally beginning to realise the previous power of the U.S. lies not in exceptionalism, but in its parasitic nature. All this remains a conspiracy theory to many Americans, but well known to the rest of the world – Ron Paul explains.


In November of 2000, Iraq began selling its oil only in Euros, the PetroEuro.


In 2006, Libya’s Khadaffi organised a block of African countries to create a gold-based currency called the gold dinar, to replace the U.S. dollar.


In 2007, Iran requests payments made in other than $US. Bound by common defence agreements Syria is Iran’s closest ally.


Both China and Russia abandon the Petrodollar in 2014.


In all, 23 countries have now abandoned the dollar and SWIFT, the dollar-based financial transaction system.


In All Wars are Bankers’ wars! Michael Rivero explains the history and predatory nature behind the U.S. Federal Reserve. However, the site experiences regular takedowns, here for a .pdf version, or the video here. Required knowledge behind the turmoil in today’s world.


The Future


The Day all Men became Equal


While NATO and the US continue to play war games, those on the receiving end might want to play another game with nukemap. Enter your world location, select a missile, view the strike results and hope it remains a game. The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 20kt and 15kt respectively. The Russian Topol SS25 is 800kt! The world has changed since the Cuban crisis of over half a century ago. Today there are no winners, confidence cannot be high and only compromises remain.




Or will America go quietly? A strong U.S. economy is not the answer to global prosperity; it is a system that allows the transfer of the world’s wealth to the U.S. As the global recession bites ever deeper, more and more Americans are waking up to the realisation that it was not they who created the wealth of America, but others. The dollar is collapsing and the American Empire is in decline. From The Federal Emergency Management Agency, to the militarisation of the police and what looks suspiciously like the beginnings of a police state, it is clear the U.S. government also realise the dangers ahead. Will the U.S. go nuclear, or accept the unavoidable economic and social collapse on its way to Armageddon?

Russia to Upgrade Nuclear Weapons in Response to NATO’s Buildup – Lawmaker


 Russian high ranking military officials, look into an opened silo of a Russian intercontinental ballistic Topol-M missile somewhere at undisclosed location in Russia in this 2001 photo


Moscow will improve its nuclear arsenal development in response to NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe, the Federation Council committee’s deputy chairman said Wednesday.


Earlier in the day, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO ministers of defense agreed to boost the alliance’s presence in its eastern part as well as in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.


“Russia will continue to strengthen its defensive potential, to improve the deterrent potential of nuclear weapons… We possess weapons that can deter our so-called partners from any critical decisions that could come to their minds,” Evgeny Serebrennikov told RIA Novosti.


He added that NATO’s activities aim at deterrence against Russia both in economic and military spheres.


Since 2014, NATO has been steadily building up its military presence in Europe, particularly in Eastern European countries bordering Russia, using Moscow’s alleged interference in Ukraine as a pretext for the move.


In September, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that any NATO advancement toward Russian borders would prompt Moscow to take counter-measures to ensure the country’s national security.

Russia Accuses US of Violating Nuclear Arms Treaty

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Russia believes that the United States violated their bilateral deal on intermediate-range nuclear forces when it installed Mk 41 vertical launching systems in Eastern Europe.


The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Russia believes that the United States violated their bilateral deal on intermediate-range nuclear forces when it installed Mk 41 vertical launching systems in Eastern Europe.

     Russia believes that the United States violated their bilateral deal on intermediate-range nuclear forces when it installed Mk 41 vertical launching systems in Eastern Europe, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.

The 1987 INF Treaty banned nuclear and conventional ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles.

“We have grounds to regard land-based Mk 41s as cruise missile launching systems and their deployment on the ground as a direct INF violation by the US side,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

When installed on warships, Mk 41s can be used for launching both SM-3 interceptor missiles and medium to range Tomahawk cruise missiles. Several Mk 41s are currently stationed in Romania and will be later redeployed to Poland.

This came in response to continued US accusations that Moscow is not fulfilling its INF Treaty obligations. Washington alleges that Moscow tested a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the INF Treaty.The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated on Wednesday that Moscow considered such accusations to be baseless and accused Washington of using these claims to justify its “response” measures.

US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Brian McKeon said earlier today that the Pentagon was developing a “comprehensive response” to Russia’s alleged military actions irrespective of Moscow’s answer.

“The aim of this deceptive move is obvious – it is to cast a shadow on our arms controls and to deflect attention from US actions,” the Russian statement read.

It accused the United States of piling military infrastructure at the Russian border and refusing to discuss the problem. “The situation with the treaty is shamelessly used to escalate the atmosphere of chronic military tension across the Euro-Atlantic space,” the Ministry said.

Speaking at the House Armed Services Committee, Brian McKeon said that the United States would increase its rotational forces and military exercises in NATO’s eastern flank, and preposition military hardware in Europe.