Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't know about a formal process.How do you 'kick someone out of NATO'?
And the watermelon seller will gladly let Pootin have his country.I don't know about a formal process.
Just have everyone say that they are accepting Finland no matter what Turkey says, and publicly state that no one will do anything to help protect Turkey any longer, so Russia is welcome to invade Turkey whenever they want.
Not for money, but for some political or trade concessions.You believe he is doing it for money?If they would give him it that is as bad. I'll be watching but he may just not want to wretch this up a notch.
Nobody wants him buut there is no procedure for expelling a member, and despite its government, Turkey's location is strategically important.Either that or he'll be kicked out. No one wants Turkey in NATO.
Their territory may be strategically important, but if Turkey is not an actual ally (and they are not), then their strategic location provides no value to the alliance.Nobody wants him buut there is no procedure for expelling a member, and despite its government, Turkey's location is strategically important.
Except, they aren't actually an ally. Turkey is NATO's enemy.Turkey is an important ally for NATO. Big and strong army, geographical location, control of the straits to the Black Sea.
I wouldn't call them an enemy, so far. Just Erdogan has been trying to play his own role as a regional leader. But if he really vetoes joining the two countries to NATO, this should be a final countdown for Turkey membership.Except, they aren't actually an ally. Turkey is NATO's enemy.
For me Turkey crossed the line to enemy status a long time ago.I wouldn't call them an enemy, so far.
While Turkey is very disappointing as a NATO, the US still have 50 nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey, so it is not without any value.Their territory may be strategically important, but if Turkey is not an actual ally (and they are not), then their strategic location provides no value to the alliance.
Storing nukes there is a liability, not a value. We should pull those nukes out before Turkey steals them from us.While Turkey is very disappointing as a NATO, the US still have 50 nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey, so it is not without any value.
Those are scheduled to be replaced, but I don't know what the timeframe is. By 2026 in theory. All of the existing B61's will be upgraded to the -12.Storing nukes there is a liability, not a value. We should pull those nukes out before Turkey steals them from us.
armscontrolcenter.org
I expect that we will end up with 480 B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs.230 B61's now in all, that's set to go up to 400, all will be mod 12.
I meant to say the 230 were all the non-strategic versions, the rest of the B61's are strategic under New Start.I expect that we will end up with 480 B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-12 is a highly-modernized B61-4, and there are 480 B61-4 bombs that we could potentially modernize.
We'll probably also keep a few hundred of the old B61-7 strategic nuclear bombs for our B2 bombers to drop for the next ten years or so, before phasing out both the B2 bomber and the B61-7 in favor of newer bomber systems.
Finland says Russia supplies only a small amount of electricity and it can easily be replaced.I'm hearing reports that Russia cut off Finland's power. Dunno exactly what that means...
But it's going to some sort of disruption. Not that Finland uses a lot of power.
480 is the most that we could upgrade from existing B61-4s, because 480 is the number of B61-4s that we currently possess.I've heard 400 and 480, I think DOE is still saying 400 but I could be wrong.
