Deliso 5 (Christopher, American journalist and travel writer, “Plame, Pakistan, a Nuclear Turkey, and the Neocons, http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091) MJ
Proud Turkey has always wanted to be seen as an important country. Were it to declare itself a nuclear one, it would become, for a time at least, the most important country in the world. The entire balance of power in Europe and the Middle East would be radically altered overnight, and the overall side results would not at all be positive for Turkey or anyone else – except of course for those cashing in on illicit nuclear sales. Nevertheless, the country is probably technologically capable by now. A new question that has thus arisen, as articulated recently by Turkish scholar Mehmet Kalyoncu on Balkanalysis.com, is the following: "If the U.S. and the EU do not approve of Turkey having nuclear weapons, what do they have to offer Turkey instead?"
Turkey proliferation creates regional instability
AHMP 99 (American Hellenic Media Project, “Community Urged to Protest Against A Nuclear Turkey,” http://www.ahmp.org/Nuketurk.html) MJ
The media has been characteristically silent on an issue that could radically transform the geopolitical landscape of Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia: Turkey's program to construct nuclear reactors on its southern coastline. American, Canadian and European companies are bidding for the right to sell sensitive nuclear reactor technology to Turkey. In 1981, Israeli fighter jets bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor on the grounds that the reactor constituted the key to developing an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and thus a threat to regional stability. Given Turkey's increasingly expansionist agenda towards EU and NATO-member Greece, its belligerent posture towards neighbors Armenia and Syria, and its self-image as a regional superpower -- which led to a coup attempt against Azerbaijan's government in 1995 -- a far larger threat to regional stability would be posed by a nuclear Turkey. The development of a Turkish nuclear capability will arguably constitute the most significant geostrategic crisis to face Hellenism, Armenia, and the development of democracy in the Balkans and southwestern Asia in the coming century. As reported by Economist correspondent Marcia Kurop in The Christian Science Monitor ("Accommodating Turkey", 7/31/98), Turkey's nuclear aspirations are an axial reason underlying the Turkish state's dogged determination to make its occupation of Cyprus permanent: "the Turks - in contrast to what the United States tries to portray as a local, Balkan-type conflict - openly admit their strategic argument for wanting an independent north: shipping to Turkey's southern coast; the development of nuclear facilities in southern Turkey; oil shipping ports to be based in Ceyhan; fortified bases at Adana and Iskanderun; military relations with Israel. All are part of their need for an independent north."
Nuclear Turkey will create nuclear arms race in Balkans and Mideast
Spyropoulos 99 (P.D., Executive Director of American Hellenic Media Project, Boston Globe, p. http://www.ahmp.org/bosglob8.html 2/18/10)
Many are now convinced that a nuclear Turkey, already among the most highly militarized states in the world, will be the surest way to usher in a nuclear arms race in the Balkans and Mideast, two of the world's most volatile regions, and both at Europe's doorstep. Turkey's military adventurism in the Balkans, Cyprus, Central Asia and the Middle East should further underscore the fact that placing nuclear power into the hands of governments that have not yet developed the maturity to harness it can soon develop into the greatest global security threat of the coming century.
2NC Impact Scenario-Russia
If US pulls their weapons, Russia will fill in
Global Security Newswire 10 (“U.S. Urged to Remove Tactical Nukes in Europe,” NTI, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100422_3466.php) MJ
Calls to pull the U.S. weapons from Europe could lead certain NATO states to seek corresponding action by Russia, which is believed to hold a significantly larger stockpile of tactical nuclear bombs within its borders. A high-level U.S. official said it was important for NATO to come to a single position on the issue. "Our principle, and most important guidepost for moving into this discussion is that we don't want to divide the alliance on this issue," the official said. Some NATO members from Eastern Europe, such as Estonia, favor keeping the weapons in Europe as a safeguard against Russia, which has moved to modernize its own nuclear forces and has placed them at the center of its broader deterrence strategy (see GSN, Feb. 17).
2NC Impact Scenario-Other Countries Proliferate
If US removes TNWs, Turkey with face a direct threat from Iranian missiles
Warren and Kelleher 9 (Scott, Director of General Citizen, Helen, Professor at University of Maryland, “Getting to Zero Starts Here: Tactical Nuclear Weapons,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_10/Kelleher) MJ
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 newer central 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. plan for a European missile defense system.
Nuclear weapons are critical to protect Turkey from neighbors with the bomb
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. They also 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.