Well I say Romania because Romania has the base, and is nearly the same easy-access to Russia's soft underbelly that Turkey provides. Lest anyone have any confusion why those nuclear bombs are there.
Long story short, Turkey was useful during the Cold War and is useful today because geography makes Russia defending attacks from the south rather hard, so a long standing part of US strategy is to send bombers in from Turkey (B-1s, B-52s and B-2s stopping over). The B-52s would launch nuclear air launched cruise missiles (stored in the US) to destroy Russia's limited southern air defenses en masse, and then the B-1s and B-2s would go "behind enemy lines" hunting for mobile launchers.
Simulations by universities and think takes give a really high success rate for such a thing. We'd get most of them.
The thing is, it may not be necessary anymore. Nuclear bombs and warheads made a kind of sense decades ago because precision guidance was not a thing. If you can't hit accurately then what? Blow up the entire area. But in a world with precision guidance that could destroy bunkers, mobile launchers and air defenses all on their own, what's the purpose of a nuclear bomb other than to take out a base in one hit or other massed forces (which mobile launchers by definition won't be... they'll be very widely dispersed)? Not much.
To put a bigger perspective on this, the people most concerned about this is Russia. Because if the US were to build air launched or US-launched hypersonic cruise missiles that could Strike Russia in ~30-60 minutes from extreme range and do huge damage non-nuclearly, then it opens the door to the US having a technology Russia's doesn't , but could only be countered with nuclear weapons themselves.... but Russia is subject to a warhead cap on the counter when the US wouldn't be on Hypersonics.
Moral of the story, fuck with Russia and keep then in Romania. But in the name of God, get them out of Turkey.