Matishak 9 (Martin, reporter at Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Could Pull Back Europe-Based Nukes, State Department Official Says,” Global Security Newswire, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090805_4929.php) MJ
The military value of the Europe-based tactical weapons has "dropped precipitously since the days of the Cold War," Einhorn said. However, they continue play a role in the "cohesion" of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he added without elaborating. In addition, "at least one" ally country believes the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons on it soil reduces the incentive for it to acquire its own nuclear weapons capability, Einhorn told the audience. Kristensen told Global Security Newswire yesterday in a telephone interview that Einhorn was referring to Turkey. In its final report to lawmakers in May the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States said that the requirements of "extended deterrence in Europe are evolving, given the changing relationship with Russia" and the perception of some allies that they are "keenly vulnerable to Russian military coercion." Nations located near Russia believe that U.S. nonstrategic forces in Europe remain necessary to prevent the Kremlin from using its nuclear arsenal as a means of coercion against them, according to the report. It warns that the United States should not abandon "strategic equivalency with Russia" and should not cede to Moscow "a posture of superiority in the name of de-emphasizing nuclear weapons in U.S. military strategy."
If nuclear weapons were removed from Turkey, they would proliferate
Khaleej Times 10 (“NATO debates future of U.S. nuclear arms in Europe,” Khaleej Times Online, http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/international/2010/April/international_April1246.xml§ion=international)
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that while the 28-member Western security alliance must debate the matter, he personally thought U.S. nuclear weapons must stay in Europe. “I do believe that the presence of American nuclear weapons in Europe is an essential part of a credible deterrent,” he told reporters. Clinton to explain principles A senior U.S. official said Clinton would lay out some guiding principles during the dinner meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Tallinn, the Estonian capital. Washington and Rasmussen have stressed the need for unity among the 28 NATO states and while no agreement is expected in Tallinn, the alliance aims to set out its nuclear stance in a new strategic vision due to be approved at a summit in November. Analysts say tactical nuclear arms have little military rationale in a post-Cold War world, especially since readiness had been so reduced that they would take months to deploy. But a key concern is that any move to remove NATO nuclear weapons could prompt Turkey to develop its own deterrent, given its worries about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. A nuclear Turkey would cause nuclear confrontations
Deliso 5 (Christopher, American journalist and travel writer, “Plame, Pakistan, a Nuclear Turkey, and the Neocons, http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091) MJ
An even more frightening prospect is a nuclear Turkey. The country has been militarily subsidized even more than Pakistan; mass military aid and technology transfer were justified first of all by Turkey's status as a key Cold War ally and thereafter as a bulwark of secular Islam, holding the wall against Syria, Iran, and Iraq. However, the very same American leaders who have been arming Turkey and allowing, in some cases even profiting from, nuclear smuggling there have also ruined the delicate balance of regional power with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and brought the world far closer to nuclear confrontations. In the former case, they put huge strain on the "pro-Western" Musharraf government, strengthening the hand of fundamentalist Islamists in both the mosque and in the armed forces. Musharraf has survived multiple assassination attempts, but there is no guarantee that he will enjoy lucky escapes forever. If he goes, what then? Any coup by a populist, fundamentalist-based leader would instantly put both Pakistan and India on high alert, taking us back to previous near-apocalyptic nuclear showdowns. Mired in numerous other bloody commitments of its own making, there's no certainty that the U.S. could finesse the situation as it did in 1990.
Turkey feels comfortable in the status quo because of the protection of nuclear weapons
Bell 9 (Alexandra, Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund, “Turkey’s Nuclear Crossroads,” http//www.good.is/post/turkeys-nuclear-crossroads/) MJ
At the moment, Turkey seems alright with the status quo. It does not have a nuclear adversary, and in addition to being covered by NATO’s strategic security umbrella, it also houses an estimated 50 to 90 tactical nuclear weapons. Turkish officials were cagey about discussing these weapons. A former Air Force general, following what seemed to be the official line, denied that there were nuclear weapons in Turkey, saying they were removed at the end of the Cold War. This differed from the other officials I met, whose wink-wink references basically confirmed the presence of the nukes. Theyalso hinted that the weapons would be critically important if a certain neighbor got the bomb. Polling I had seen previously indicated ample public support in Turkey for giving up these weapons, but my trip there made it clear that polling, papers, and news reports are no substitute for actually going to a country and meeting with people. Most Turks I met would answer disarmament questions in entirely different ways, depending on whether or not Iran was referenced. Removing tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey will be difficult, but not impossible. In order to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons, U.S. policy makers have to start thinking about how things are connected. Countries like Turkey rely on nuclear weapons for political and security reasons. To feel comfortable without nukes, these countries must be convinced that their neighbors will not acquire them. That means efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles—including tactical nukes—and efforts to stop the creation of new nuclear programs must happen in concert.
No proliferation in Turkey because of US nuclear umbrella
Barkey 9 (Henri, international relations professor-Leigh University, “Turkey's Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament,” Carnegie Middle East Center, http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=23975&lang=en) MJ
Turkey lacks a coherently articulated national policy vis-à-vis nuclear weapons. This is partly due to the fact that as a member of NATO it is a direct beneficiary of the US nuclear umbrella and because the United States maintains a number of nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Air Force base in southern Turkey. The absence of such a policy is also the result of the unclear demarcation of lines of authority between civilian and military leaders on issues of national defense. While this may not have been a problem in the past, civil-military relations have been strained under the current ruling government, led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Until recently, when it came to setting national priorities, the military establishment’s role could best be described as primus inter pares. The AKP’s preoccupation with expanding Turkey’s role in the region and its push to reform Turkish state structures, including the military’s prerogatives, are radically challenging the military’s control of the national security agenda.
Harvey 6/24 (Henri, professor at Lehigh University and visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Global Insider: Turkey's Nuclear Ambitions, World Politics Review, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/5881/global-insider-turkeys-nuclear-ambitions) MJ
Technically, it should not matter to the proliferation debates. Turkey is unique, in that it does not need nuclear weapons because it enjoys the NATO and American nuclear umbrella that includes some 90 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Turkey proper. A Turkish nuclear energy program would, on the other hand, help reduce dependence on imported gas and oil. But even here, one nuclear plant would not make much of a difference, given the growing Turkish economy and the corresponding increase in its energy needs.