I'm skeptical that the PALs are as easy to bypass as this article says. It's possible that the arming code includes critical information necessary to properly detonate the bomb, such as timing info for firing the various detonators. Even if it doesn't, the critical PAL hardware is deep inside the bomb, requiring the bomb to be disassembled to get to it, then reassembled afterwards, and that's not quite as easy as swapping out your car's spark plugs.
Command and Control [1] is highly recommended, and discusses this very situation, along with the always/never constraints on nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons should Always go off when used legitimately, and Never go off when not authorized.
Before reading this I had never really thought through the idea of fail-safe, especially that it has an implicit opposite: fail-deadly.
1. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
While still concerning, they really buried a key detail: "About two thousand U.S. military personnel remain stationed there."
One thing most people don't hear in the traditional American story about the Cuban Missle Crisis is that we put our weapons close to Russia (in Turkey) before they put any weapons close to us.
>the “dial-a-yield” of the B-61 bombs at Incirlik can be adjusted from 0.3 kilotons to as many as a hundred and seventy kilotons.
Wow that's quite a range. I wonder if it's the hydrogen volume adjusted to determine the yield.
Is there no US response to their base being isolated and restricted like that? Or just no direct military response? They've effectively been taken hostage from the sound of this article.
Quote "...it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them. "
What kind of aircraft would be that?
> Although Incirlik probably has more nuclear weapons than any other nato base, it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them
What the hell is the point of that?
Why did not they think of this while facilitating coup guys?
I understand that stationing nuclear weapons is a good way to ensure your allies of your support in case of an attack, but having them stationed anywhere in the Middle East in these chaotic times sounds completely nuts to me.
You can't know who will be in power in any of these countries in one year from now and what they'll do.
The Turkish military is probably strong enough to easily overpower the US soldiers stationed at that base. What if they decide to simply take the nuclear weapons by force?
Edit: The Germans have removed their NATO forces from Turkey some time ago (Turkey protested against that) and I believe that this is due to them viewing the situation in Turkey as extremely unstable.
They don't want to get caught in a situation where they might have to go to war to protect a government that acts unpredictable. (meaning: they might incite the war themselves)
First thing the Turks did when they shot down the Russian plane was to call for article 5 of the NATO treaty! (collective defence against an attacker)
While Turkey has conflicts with some groups who want to grab part of the land or overthrow the government, they are FWIW a useful ally in the region because they have mostly-friendly dealings with UAE, Saudis, Iran, parts of Africa and also Israel. The degree of diplomacy varies, but there aren't many NATO members in that region who are as compatible when it comes to diplomatic ties with the region's powers. Russia, unfortunately doesn't deal with Iran, Israel and the Saudis the same way.
Given their growing business ties and influence in the region, maybe China can be another powerful ally. Or India. It certainly would help to have more than one dependable ally there, but China, like Russia, is in a weird power-play game with the USA, Australia, etc. Russia is more biased than Turkey, and that says a lot since Turkey cannot be a neutral Switzerland type because of their borders and demographic, so they're less of an option.
Also, let's not forget that Turkey has better relations with some ex-USSR nation that have considerable natural resources, due to cultural heritage, but then again strained relations with most of the ex-USSR countries.
It's a mess, but that's world politics.