Turkey thinks the security relationship is important
Larrabee 10 (F. Stephen, National Security Council, Troubled partnership : U.S.–Turkish relations in an era of global geopolitical change, Rand, pg 4)
The security relationship remains important for Turkey as well. Turkey lives in a tough and volatile neighborhood and has disputes with several neighbors (i.e., Syria, Iraq, Greece, and Armenia). It also is within range of missiles fired from Iran and Iraq. Thus, Turkey views its security relationship with the United States as an important insurance policy against its growing exposure to risks coming from the Middle East. Although U.S. involvement in the Middle East also entails risks for Turkey, on balance, Turkey benefits from the U.S. military presence in adjacent regions. The United States is also Turkey’s most important arms supplier. Despite recent efforts at diversification, Turkey still conducts roughly 80 percent of its defense-industrial activity with the United States. Large numbers of Turkish officers have been trained in the United States.3 This has allowed the Turkish armed forces to develop close ties to their American counterparts and obtain a deeper knowledge of U.S. military operational doctrine and thinking.
Nuclear withdrawal leads countries like Turkey to proliferation
Laird 9 (Burgess, national security analyst, “A Guide to the Challenges Facing President Obama's Nuclear Abolition Agenda,” Carnegie Council, http://www.cceia.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/0025.html) MJ
Many disarmament advocates have argued for a withdrawal of U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe for quite some time. The argument is that these weapons no longer have any operational utility as they were deployed to offset the sizeable advantage enjoyed by Soviet conventional forces—a quantitative advantage that disappeared with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union—and that their number, size and geographic dispersal makes both the U.S. and Russian weapons difficult and costly to control and secure. In short, they are proliferation nightmares. Critics point out that such arguments neglect the views of our allies, who see these weapons as concrete symbols of U.S. extended deterrence guarantees. And to be sure, the high value of these weapons has been frequently reaffirmed, most emphatically, in NATO's 1999 "Strategic Concept." The Strategic Concept asserts that "The Alliance will maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe…The Alliance's conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence. Nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the Alliance incalculable and unacceptable. Thus, they remain essential to preserve the peace." Many U.S. allies, the argument proceeds, especially the newer member states of NATO as well as Turkey and Japan would interpret a withdrawal of the non-strategic nuclear weapons as a significant weakening of U.S. security commitments and, in response, some allies might well undertake nuclear weapons programs of their own to ensure their security.
If the United States removes the tactical nuclear weapons, Turkey would proliferate.
Global Security Newswire 10 (“U.S. Urged to Remove Tactical Nukes in Europe,” NTI, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100422_3466.php) MJ
“Nuclear deterrence based in Europe must remain , as it preserves close trans-Atlantic ties and allows for greater flexibility in deterrence," Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said as the NATO summit began. While not specifically touching on nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed Washington's commitment to providing a strong defense to its partners. "Let me be clear," Clinton said to journalists in Tallinn, "our commitment to Estonia and our other allies is a bedrock principle of the United States and we will never waver from it." NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested in an interview he believed the tactical arms should remain in Europe. "If we look at today's world, then there is no alternative to nuclear arms in NATO's deterrent capability," Rasmussen said. "My personal opinion is that the stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe is part of deterrence to be taken seriously," he said (Agence France-Presse/Raw Story, April 22). NATO hopes to finalize its nuclear position at a meeting next November in Portugal, Reuters reported. On Monday, Rasmussen said, "No [nuclear] decision will be taken in Tallinn." "But I do think the principles of NATO's nuclear discussion are already clear: first that no ally will take unilateral decisions and second that as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will need a nuclear deterrent." Belgian Foreign Ministry spokesman Patrick Deboeck said the alliance must be in full agreement on whatever is decided. "We think it is important to maintain the credibility of nuclear deterrence, but we also see the possibility to go further" on nuclear arms reductions, he said. "NATO has a role to play on tactical nuclear weapons." The Center for European Reform's Tomas Valasek said that some NATO members in Central Europe could see the removal of the U.S. gravity bombs as "a unilateral step taken by their big Western allies that puts Russia's concerns ahead of theirs ... so it will be a divisive question." There are also concerns that such a pullout could lead Turkey to seek its own nuclear weapons as a hedge against potential nuclear arms held by other Middle Eastern states (David Brunnstrom, Reuters/Washington Post)
Spring and McNamara 10 (Baker, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy, Sally, Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs, “President Obama Must Not Remove Nuclear Weapons from Europe,” Heritage Foundation) MJ
The vast majority of America’s allies in Europe have not sought to join the club of nuclear weapons powers, largely because they enjoy the comfort of the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella. However, America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament may prompt some nations—particularly Poland in light of Moscow’s war gaming and Warsaw’s general sense of a transatlantic distancing—to seek alternate security insurance. Indeed, Turkey and countless other non-nuclear powers under the NATO umbrella could further be tempted to fill the security vacuum created by America’s unilateral disarmament by seeking their own weapons or forming alliances with other nuclear powers. The removal of American tactical nuclear weapons could also encourage a hostile nation to seek similar weapons if it perceives America’s indifference to the transatlantic alliance. Russia and rogue states such as Iran and Syria could be emboldened by America’s retreat from its security commitments to Europe. Russia has already proved itself to be an authoritarian power, seeking to regain influence over its former satellites. In short, the ramifications of this measure are unpredictable and likely to be contrary to President Obama’s goal of nuclear disarmament.
Podvig 10 (Pavel, researcher at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, “What to do about tactical nuclear weapons,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/what-to-do-about-tactical-nuclear-weapons) MJ
However, change is in the air. While the presence of U.S. nonstrategic weapons in Europe (based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey specifically) has always had nongovernmental critics, now some of these individual governments are raising questions as well. Germany was the first to break ranks; its officials began speaking favorably about the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe several years ago. And last November, Berlin officially committed itself to the removal of U.S. weapons from German territory. Similarly, in early February, the Polish and Swedish foreign ministers urged both the United States and Russia to reduce the number of tactical weapons in Europe. Most recently, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway announced that they will demand that the United States remove the weapons from Europe. Nonetheless, there are still influential players who want the weapons to remain in Europe. Their key argument is that if the U.S. nuclear weapons are removed, NATO members would no longer trust Washington's commitment to protecting Europe. Such a move, the argument goes, will lead to all kinds of negative consequences--from triggering "a corrosive internal debate" within NATO to Turkey deciding to pursue its own nuclear weapon capability.