Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "When will Turkey develop the bomb?" video.

If you're Greek or Greek Cypriot, this would make sense.
7
It's interesting. Coming from the U.S., for most of my life Turkey was always held in high regard as a NATO ally and a peaceful bridge between Europe and the Middle East whose people were secular-minded and shared a certain degree of values and customs with the west. It was only when I began spending more time in Europe (specifically southern Europe) that I noticed how people there had a much different view of Turkey and her people. Turkey has flooded Europe with migrants (directly leading to increases in crime and drug trafficking), has openly threatened war against Greece including the destruction of Greece, bombed the Kurds after they helped defeat ISIS and has a leader who is embracing Islamic radicalism and alliances with Russia. The Turkish migrants who I've encountered in southern Europe have not been friendly and segregate themselves from society, I've been told by locals. The thought of such a regime in close proximity to Europe having nuclear arms is disturbing.
5
They would need to purchase the THAAD platform from the U.S. or the S-500 from Russia. THAAD is already deployed, while the S-500 remains in development. The S-400 has some ABM capability but that is not its real intent.
2
@aliatack19 - Why would a major superpower, much less a European regional power, use nuclear weapons against Turkey? There is no scenario in the farthest reaches of my mind in which this would occur. Turkey, on the other hand, has openly threatened to use weapons in an offensive posture against Greece and Israel. That is why people feel so strongly in this matter.
2
There is also the potential for Israel to pull an Osirak raid-style operation.
2
As an American, I have absolutely no issue with South Korea or Japan having nuclear arsenals. Hell, take a few from us! That's what friends are for, right? ;) The difference with SK and Japan (versus DPRK), however, is that these countries have democratically-elected leaders who are respected the world over. They don't seek conflict. In theory, I tend to agree with you in principle, but Kim Jong-Un just strikes me as being too unstable to be trusted. A man who kills his own brother and uncles for disloyalty, tortures people on a daily basis and does not comport with any global norms for human rights is a dangerous man. There is a case to be made he is mentally ill or suffering from any number of conditions (syphilis?) that may affect his judgment. Ultra-authoritarian states do not have the level of checks and balances of others. Even in the former USSR, many authorizations were needed before a nuclear launch, and this practice literally saved the world twice. In the case of North Korea, it is up to a single man.
1
To your initial point, I do think proliferation can actually be helpful. I would like to see Brazil develop a better arsenal to counter the Russian presence in Venezuela, which has included nuclear-capable Tu-160 flights. Brazil is one of the world's largest democracies and, despite internal issues with crime, should be a bigger presence on the world stage, and an emerging world power if not at least the regional hegemon. I am happy to see Brazil fully rebuilding its Air Force with 100+ modern aircraft (versus a dozen working Su-30s in VZ) and hopefully, someday, they will operate a carrier that can launch either the "Sea Gripen" or F-35B.
1
@kezzap0 - Why can't someone who speaks a language other than English have a say in world affairs?
1
If they could figure out a way to shoot down the few MiG-29s and MiG-21s in the arsenal, it wouldn't be all that different...
1
Regimes are seeking nuclear weapons because they believe that is the only thing that stands in the way of their governments being overthrown by a superpower. Frankly, the most flagrant example (which is hardly ever discussed) of this is Libya. Under the Bush administration, Gaddafi voluntarily abandoned its nuclear program and began cooperating with the U.S. When Obama was elected president and Hillary Clinton installed as Secretary of State, the U.S. supported the overthrow of Gaddafi and he was brutally killed in the streets. Other regimes took notice of this. The current state of proliferation in the world rests on the shoulders of Barack Obama and whichever geniuses in the U.S. and French governments decided to overthrow a man who, yes, was "bad" but was cooperating and could have been a resource in North Africa against radical Islamists.
1
@davidhouseman4328 - Tactical nuclear weapons would likely only be used in fleet defense as a last-ditch option or if an enemy was facing an impossible amount of armor that it could not fend off.
1
Japan could obtain them much easier, and relatively unopposed by the west, if they wanted them. That's the difference.
1