[dsfyu404ed]

I think you're vastly underestimating 1st world intelligence capabilities. By the time anyone is brainstorming how exactly they want to take the base the big players in NATO already have guys sitting in jets idling on the taxiway, an aircraft carrier is taking a hard turn into the wind and an aide is popping popcorn and cracking a beer so Mr. Putin can enjoy the spectacle.

When nukes are involved things get taken very seriously. Nobody wants to be the guy who thought it would all blow over and got it wrong.

[bjornsing]

Really? Doesn't the following section from the OP directly contradict that view: "In 2010, peace activists climbed over a fence at the Kleine Brogel Airbase, in Belgium, cut through a second fence, entered a hardened shelter containing nuclear-weapon vaults, placed anti-nuclear stickers on the walls, wandered the base for an hour, and posted a video of the intrusion on YouTube. The video showed that the Belgian soldier who finally confronted them was carrying an unloaded rifle."

[Eupolemos]

I'm sure conditions are exactly the same in Turkey right now; who'd dream of taking guard-duty seriously there?

And yeah, I'm sure the western intelligence-agencies are as sure to plant moles in anti-nuclear movements as in the rapidly deteriorating Turkish military high command.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but c'mon.

[michaelvoz]

I think you are giving people far too much credit, and wrapping it in too much nonsense. The amount of absolute intelligence failure (intentional or otherwise) in the last 15 or so years has been astounding.

[Vexs]

I think there's a lot of confirmation bias there, you never hear about intelligence successes.

[dsfyu404ed]

I don't disagree but keeping tabs on a nation's militarily (and related stuff) is a throwback to the cold war. They should be able to handle it.

[jkot]

You mean the same intel which said Iraq / Iran / Libya / Syria has weapons of mass destruction? There is also a chance Israel or Russia would bomb the site, before those bombs get in wrong hands.

[lisivka]

It is very sad that chemical weapon used by Iraq against Kurds is still not found. Moreover, it was used again year ago in Iraq against Kurds.

PS. Moreover, large quantities of mustard agent were found in Syria in 2013.

[DominikR]

Don't get me wrong, I oppose the kind of government that the Iranians have right now, but the chemical weapons supplied by the West were mainly used against the Iranians. And with a terrible outcome for the Iranians.

[lisivka]

AFAIK, West governments (USA, West Germany) supplied only dual-use pesticides to Iraq, but then, after Iran-Iraq war with use of chemical weapons by Iraq, these dual-use chemicals were banned [1]. Do you know any other facts about supplying of dual-use chemicals or chemical weapons to Iraq by West?

1: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/chemical_warfare...

[DominikR]

"Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. One of the contributions was a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company; the plant was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program...

This looks implicating to me to a degree that there is no doubt in my mind that these governments supported the chemical weapons program of Iraq. I also read that there were actually German soldiers on the ground during the Iran-Iraq war that helped the Iraqis use the chemical weapons correctly, although there is no proof for that other than a few people who testified. I at least believe this is possible.

But yes, they wanted Iraq to destroy Iran, when they saw that they couldn't do it they wanted the weapons gone.

[Maultasche]

Intelligence has discovered some very valuable information, but it has always been unreliable. There's plenty of information that is never discovered, and there's an incredible amount of noise that these intelligence agencies are collecting, that the signal is hard to find. To make things worse, other intelligence agencies are purposely spamming everyone else with noise and false information. The really hard part is figuring out what's true and what's valuable.

Agents have historically been fond of generating false intelligence to prove that they are valuable, and historical documentation has shown that agents aren't always that competent.

Using technology certainly helps, but it has its limits. Human intelligence tends to get better information, but can be unreliable and generate lots of false information.

It would not surprise me at all if intelligence agencies failed to realize something is coming. Hindsight shows that the intelligence failures in 9/11 and Iraq were due to valuable information not being identified or the intelligence community sucking up false information from informants who were just making it up to stay in the CIA payroll. It's a real hit and miss sort of business.

[jacquesm]

Then how come they are still there?

If what you write is true they should have had clear warning about that coup attempt. It might have succeeded.

[dragonwriter]

> If what you write is true they should have had clear warning about that coup attempt. It might have succeeded.

Or, the relevant intelligence agencies had clear warning, a good estimate of capabilities and what it would take to defeat it, and were able to intervene to assure that the Erdogan government was capable of putting down the coup

Or they had clear warning, sufficient intelligence about the intentions and orientation of the coup plotters that they were comfortable that the weapons would be no less safe even if the coup succeeded.

Or...

[dsfyu404ed]

I'd be surprised if they don't have the capability to disarm them and destroy the "interesting" components relatively quickly.

I would also be surprised if (besides initial instability) the expected outcome of a military coup is much worse than the status quo.

With the current situation there's probably not much good of saying "yeah, that place is pretty fked so we gtfo'd." Which exactly the message sent by loading up all your nukes and gtfoing at ~Mach 2.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

> Then how come they are still there?

Because they correctly perceive there's very little risk in remaining there.

[mdrzn]

Unless this is exactly what they planned.

[jacquesm]

That could be but there is absolutely zero evidence for that, it appears that they were caught flat-footed, the (Turkish) base commander was arrested.

[yAnonymous]

Let's see:

* there's a list of 6000 people to be arrested, military and non-military, which must have existed before

* offensive on the ground took place at a time when they must have known Erdogan wasn't there

* they could have shot down his plane with F16s, but didn't

* the coup was generally terribly organized, in a country where the military certainly knows how to do it

* Erdogan is known to be a mischievous POS

Many people are sceptical and for good reasons.

[jacquesm]

If find that a more worrisome scenario than a failed coup. The previous (successful) coups in Turkey ended with the military handing back power as soon as it was feasible and they have traditionally only done this to safeguard Turkey as a secular state.

Going with your suggestion would indicate that this safeguard no longer exists.

[gkya]

> safeguard Turkey as a secular state

In '61 and '97. Go to turkish leftists, ask what happened in 1980.