Does America Need Intermediate Range Nukes?

I'm not sure if we should put tactical nuclear weapons in Poland (if Poland would accept them), but we should definitely remove them from Turkey.

If Turkey is so friendly with Russia and Iran, Turkey clearly doesn't need to deter either of them from nuking Turkey. And I don't trust Turkey not to seize the American weapons.

The issue of tactical nuclear weapons is interesting. We have 150 in Europe. In addition to Turkey, I'll assume we have some in Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. (Oh, reading down I see Italy but not Britain have American nuclear bombs.) Russia has about ten times that, if memory serves me.

While I am concerned that Russia has such an advantage in theater-range nukes, the issue is really a concern over short-range weapons intended for strategic targets.

In many ways, precision weapons have reduced the need for "tactical" nukes intended to take out conventional war targets like headquarters or air fields. We just don't need "tactical" nukes because precision conventional weapons can now take out those targets.

The question is do we need shorter range strategic weapons to counter the Russians?

Some of Russia's shorter range missiles are intended for China. A bunch are for Europe (because Russia bitterly complains we might shoot some down).

China of course has some pointing back at Russia. And Britain and France have nuclear weapons.

How many should we add to the mix to reassure our allies and counter Russia?

And honestly, how many of Russia's nukes even work these days?

But by all means, move our nukes out of Turkey.